Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/23
May 23
[edit]Photographer died in 1991. Needs VRT permission from his estate. Undelete in 2062. Abzeronow (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is this from Brazil? PD-Brazil-Photo, Brazil does not use pma calculations for simple photos. --RAN (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe it is from Brazil. Although placement of photographs in the postcard suggests a degree of creativity beyond the photography. Abzeronow (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect license. This image is a photo of the subject in the uniform of the Oklahoma City Fire Department and was taken before his tenure as a FEMA/USFA appointee. So PD-USGov-FEMA is incorrect. William Graham (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
copyvio from https://kids.kiddle.co/Richard_Marx WWGB (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Kiddle is a Wikipedia mirror. The site attributes Candy156sweet on the file page, so it can't be a copyvio. SWinxy (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
out of date Isilwell (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- What? Keep. 186.172.6.153 12:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Günther Frager (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hokkaido Kannon
[edit]There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Japan for public sculptures, so commercial Creative Commons licensing permission from the sculptor (or his heirs, whoever they may be) is still required. The statue is from 1989 according to enwiki.
- File:2021-09-08 Hokkaido Dai Kannon in Ashibetsu city(北海道大観音)DJI 0492.jpg
- File:2021-09-08 Hokkaido Dai Kannon in Ashibetsu city(北海道大観音)DJI 0498 (cropped).jpg
- File:2021-09-08 Hokkaido Dai Kannon in Ashibetsu city(北海道大観音)DJI 0498.jpg
- File:2021-09-08 Hokkaido Dai Kannon in Ashibetsu city(北海道大観音)DSCF8329.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. While certainly creatively ornamented as a figure, this would be a building/architectural work according to US law (note that people can go into and look out from the figure) and I don't see any evidence that Japanese law would classify it differently. Japan allows freedom of panorama for works of architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle Japanese legal literature treats architecture more restrictively. There is a past discussion before (at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Hideyuki Murata), in which from an insight of some lawyers like Murata, buildings that are too artistic should not be considered as architecture for purposes of Article 46 (the FoP provision), but as artistic works. A specific example mentioned by the lawyer is the w:en:Tower of the Sun, which is a building technically but not an architecture. A common agreement among many lawyers there is that such types of buildings cannot be shared or distributed for selling of copies purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is necessarily comparable with Tower of the Sun. That is a big open chamber inside and the exterior details are much more superficial. Those are what may be protected. Here there are multiple floors, interior elevators, and an exterior balcony which is integrated with the work. That integration of the practical with the aesthetic would push this towards architectural. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle no, there is no evidence that Japan follows the U.S. approach in definition of architecture. The legal literature in Japan differentiate architecture and artistic works in terms of aesthetics, not the mere existence of indoor facilities like rooms and elevators inside the statue. For sure, Japanese courts will yield negative views on commercial uses of images of this and all other contemporary life-sized Buddha statues in Japan that contain indoor spaces. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that Japanese and US standards are the same. I looked more closely at the archived webpage cited in the 15+ year-old discussion. The Japanese lawyer (Murata) cited isn't even saying that Tower of the Sun is an artistic work. He is saying that if it was an artistic work it would have protection from photographic reproduction. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle you may want to post a new discussion at VP forum if there's a need to contest current consensus regarding Japanese FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that Japanese and US standards are the same. I looked more closely at the archived webpage cited in the 15+ year-old discussion. The Japanese lawyer (Murata) cited isn't even saying that Tower of the Sun is an artistic work. He is saying that if it was an artistic work it would have protection from photographic reproduction. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle no, there is no evidence that Japan follows the U.S. approach in definition of architecture. The legal literature in Japan differentiate architecture and artistic works in terms of aesthetics, not the mere existence of indoor facilities like rooms and elevators inside the statue. For sure, Japanese courts will yield negative views on commercial uses of images of this and all other contemporary life-sized Buddha statues in Japan that contain indoor spaces. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is necessarily comparable with Tower of the Sun. That is a big open chamber inside and the exterior details are much more superficial. Those are what may be protected. Here there are multiple floors, interior elevators, and an exterior balcony which is integrated with the work. That integration of the practical with the aesthetic would push this towards architectural. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle Japanese legal literature treats architecture more restrictively. There is a past discussion before (at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Hideyuki Murata), in which from an insight of some lawyers like Murata, buildings that are too artistic should not be considered as architecture for purposes of Article 46 (the FoP provision), but as artistic works. A specific example mentioned by the lawyer is the w:en:Tower of the Sun, which is a building technically but not an architecture. A common agreement among many lawyers there is that such types of buildings cannot be shared or distributed for selling of copies purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
A text only, There no Freedom of panorama in China. メイド理世 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 南山 Nanshan 留仙大道 Liuxian Blvd parking Excavator bucket 鏟泥車 construction machine rule sheet sign August 2023 Px3.jpg
[edit]A text only, There no Freedom of panorama in China. メイド理世 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 金田路 Jintian Road 深圳博物館 Shenzhen Museum interior August 2023 Px3 10.jpg
[edit]A 2D work only, There no Freedom of panorama in China. メイド理世 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 金田路 Jintian Road 深圳博物館 Shenzhen Museum interior August 2023 Px3 11.jpg
[edit]A 2D work only, There no Freedom of panorama in China. メイド理世 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 龍華區 Longhua District 景龍建設路 Jinglong Jianshe Road 壹方天地 Uniwalk Mall shop Smartphones OPPO September 2023 R12S 16.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted Screenshot. メイド理世 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 南山 Nanshan 桃園路 Taoyuan Road 聖淘沙酒店 Sentosa Hotel shopping mall breakfast menu October 2023 R12S.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted food menu in China. Solomon203 (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: plain text list, not copyrightable prose. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 南山 Nanshan 桃園路 Taoyuan Road 聖淘沙酒店 Sentosa Hotel shopping mall breakfast menu October 2023 R12S.jpg
[edit]A text only, There no Freedom of panorama in China. メイド理世 (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @P199 why kept this image? メイド理世 (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because the text of a menu is not copyrightable. There's no art involved in creation of this menu list (e.g. it has no pictures). PaterMcFly (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 4 Chinese characters ("活力早餐") in this picture are copyrightable. See examples at COM:TOO China. Teetrition (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because the text of a menu is not copyrightable. There's no art involved in creation of this menu list (e.g. it has no pictures). PaterMcFly (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Image has appeared in multiple news websites: Indian Express, TV9 Kan, Udayavani. Low resolution image and no EXIF, so unlikely the work of uploader.
--Gpkp (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Replacing the image with the owned image of the user with his mother. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.2.234.210 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Letter scan without educatiuonal use Drakosh (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The letter concerns an Uzbek politician (who seemingly got accused of damaging a company but was aquitted of such accusations, judging by the Russian file description). I've added the relevant categories to make the connection to said politician (Hasanboy Burxonov) clear. There are articles about Hasanboy Burxonov on Uzbek, Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia (and there's a currently declined draft on him on English Wikipedia: Draft:Hasanboy Burhanov), so I'd say that the guy is notable enough to keep documents that concern him. Nakonana (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Letter scan without educatiuonal use Drakosh (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The letter concerns an Uzbek politician. I've added the relevant categories to make the connection to said politician (Hasanboy Burxonov) clear. There are articles about Hasanboy Burxonov on Uzbek, Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia, so I'd say that the guy is notable enough to keep documents that concern him. Nakonana (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Letter scan without educatiuonal use Drakosh (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The letter concerns an Uzbek politician. I've added the relevant categories to make the connection to said politician (Hasanboy Burxonov) clear. There are articles about Hasanboy Burxonov on Uzbek, Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia, so I'd say that the guy is notable enough to keep documents that concern him. Nakonana (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
La wiphala no representa al departamento de Tarija, ellos no se representan con banderas, y tampoco representa al sureste ni suroeste de Chuquisaca Elpepefachero (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Elpepefachero Esta no es razón para borrar el mapa pero sí para corregirlo. En la zona que describes que no va la Wiphala se podría poner en blanco como parte de la bandera de la flor de Patujú, saludos.Janitoalevic (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept (non-sysop closed): No valid reason for deletion. --(｀・ω・´) (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The map is wrong, given that the Wiphala is an official flag in all of Bolivia, according to Article 6 of the Constitution of Bolivia Ingaviano (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Adding information to the above: we have to read the Article 6 of the Constitution of Bolivia approved in 2009, which clearly states that the wiphala is a national symbol of Bolivia. Nowhere does it say it is only in certain regions of Bolivia, and national means that it is official in all of the country. Not only that, there is no law that states the Patujú flag is official in all of the regions that it shows. This map shows a subjective "gut feeling" of what flag is supposed to go where, but does not reflect the laws and the Constitution of Bolivia. This makes this map invalid and completely incorrect, and should therefore be deleted.--Ingaviano (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It makes no sense to have fun the country in two poles, when the consitutationally consitutational flag is a national symbol, Asismimo there are more indigenous flags in Bolivia, including all of them would be complex on a map, so it must be eliminated. Bodoque9903 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Wiphala being also a national flag makes this map invalid, because it is showing a wrong depiction of where the Wiphala is "official". It is not limited to just some regions, it is a national symbol according to Article 6 of the Constitution. @-akko Do you think you can please weigh in on this issue? Thank you in advance. Ingaviano (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Coat of arms is erronously attributed to the archbishop. The shield is the coat of arms of a monastery in Guatemala: [1] Nominated for deletion per request of uploader/author. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a naming issue. The coat of arms of the monastery only bears a crosier as seen in the attached image, and the original uploader mistaken it to be the coat of arms of the archbishop, thus the galero and the cross was used. It cannot be kept as is because of the incorrect external ornaments. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Isn't this just a naming issue?
This picture is taken from a YouTube video. However, the video isn't licensed under Creative Commons. Puppe100 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Video is not under CC. The carefree nature of the file description appears to demonstrate that the uploader has little concept of how seriously we take copyright. MFTP Dan (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RIP B1058 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo is Boeing propertiary GMGtalk 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that the logo is Boeing or NASA, who has a long history of making unique patches for missions. Even if the logo is non-free, but the photo is free from NASA, it could probably be cropped and still serve an educational purpose. GMGtalk 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the logo is de minimis and why this photo has to be deleted or cropped and this one not? --Ras67 (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I support deletion of that one too as cropping means derivative of image containing non free logo@GreenMeansGo@Ras67 RIP B1058 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Read my talk page discussion at User_talk:RIP_B1058#File:Boeing_Starliner_Crewed_Flight_Test_Patch.jpg RIP B1058 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's significantly more complex than what would normally be covered under de minimis. GMGtalk 14:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just to make sure I clarify, complex things can be covered under DM, but they generally need to be incidental to the image. This normally doesn't apply to photoshopped images where every piece is intentional. GMGtalk 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I support deletion of that one too as cropping means derivative of image containing non free logo@GreenMeansGo@Ras67 RIP B1058 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This image is from the Behar et al 2010 study, as it says, to which material we unfortunately do not have the rights. For some reason the source is marked as a completely different study that has nothing to do with this image. Finncle (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Masur as no source (No source since). However, the original uploader explicitly claimed it as their own work. If there is evidence that it was copyright violation, that should presumably be presented; otherwise, what is the basis not to assume good faith? Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) That said, a TinEye search shows one posting to the web (Synth_Electronic.html - First found on Jul 21, 2008) that predates the Commons upload; that posting does not credit an author. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tagged as no source to give an opportunity to tag it as PD, if justified. Right now it's an abvious CV. Here you have it in this context: [2] Masur (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It appears to be a publicity image, sources added, I can find no copyright registration for an image in the database that goes up to 1989. I can find patents and trademark registrations. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While Norlin, the then-current owner of Moog Synthesizers could had copyrighted some of their advertisements or pamphlets by print or by registration (which I remember seeing it in some Gibson guitars ads), in this case, not even I could find a copyright registration for the brochure attributed to Norlin or R.A. Moog under the Copyright Office's Books and Pamphlets for 1973 and 1974. Misterpither (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
Comment: I have created a set of the future replacement candidate files using nine Creative Commons files and one PD-self file on Wikimedia Commons. I'm happy if these could be useful when the currently media became unavailable in the future.
For example, we can overwrite current media (File:Bob Moog3.jpg) by new file File:Bob Moog3 new.jpg before removing all old-revisions. --Clusternote (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
-
Bob Moog3 new.jpg -
.jpg/151px-Bob_Moog3_new_(without_face).jpg)
Bob Moog3 new (without face).jpg -
.png/151px-Bob_Moog3_new_(without_silhouette).png)
Bob Moog3 new (without silhouette).png -
Bob Moog3 new color.jpg -
.jpg/151px-Bob_Moog3_new_color_(without_face).jpg)
Bob Moog3 new color (without face).jpg -
.png/151px-Bob_Moog3_new_color_(without_silhouette).png)
Bob Moog3 new color (without silhouette).png
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
DJI_0492.jpg){kind=link}
DJI_0498_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
DJI_0498.jpg){kind=link}
DSCF8329.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
differs from source now and the newer version for the same year already is here: File:Domestic-material-consumption-per-capita.png Prototyperspective (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep This is still a true copy of the image on OWID at the time of upload and is therefore a valuable record. Keep Jason.nlw (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it is kept I don't the title, description etc are adequate if the source map is now different, indicating the version here is flawed. If it is useful as an example of how maps for a given year on OWID can change and be improved over time or flawed then that should be clear, for example via the file title. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is possible this version is flawed. It is also possible that a slighlty different measure has been used to plot the chart- given that the descriptions are different. It is also possible that the current version has been mislabeled as 2019 when it is infact a later date. All seem equaly plausible to me. To get to the bottom of it will require a thorough investigation and contact with the source provider and i really dont think a deletion request is a fair or proportional approach in this case. As the uploader i'm happy to look into it. But it will likely take more the 5 days. Jason.nlw (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why keep a flawed version and make much of an effort to find out why it's flawed instead of just uploading the fixed latest version? There are obviously issues if it differs this much from the current map for the same year. See the difference for Norway. Details about what was needed to be adjusted or harmonized/standardized for the map would be useful in the description of the latest version if available. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is possible this version is flawed. It is also possible that a slighlty different measure has been used to plot the chart- given that the descriptions are different. It is also possible that the current version has been mislabeled as 2019 when it is infact a later date. All seem equaly plausible to me. To get to the bottom of it will require a thorough investigation and contact with the source provider and i really dont think a deletion request is a fair or proportional approach in this case. As the uploader i'm happy to look into it. But it will likely take more the 5 days. Jason.nlw (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it is kept I don't the title, description etc are adequate if the source map is now different, indicating the version here is flawed. If it is useful as an example of how maps for a given year on OWID can change and be improved over time or flawed then that should be clear, for example via the file title. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
more than just blurry, very bad quality, waste of time MenkinAlRire (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a better copy of this somewhere else on Commons? If not, then keep. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Photo only used in an old promotional draft in a user sandbox on the English Wikipedia. Draft has already been tagged for speedy deletion. 95.91.226.3 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Scan of book published in Sweden. Author en:Gunhild Bergh died in 1961, which is less than 70 years ago. Thuresson (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Puneetsinghbb (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logo or similar of bnirdeline complexity to may remain here, hence a discussion
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Redundant: Text is not able to read, this is ancient Tamil literature verses are available in WS and websites Sriveenkat (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as Logo: looks simple to pass COM:TOO to me, but second opinions would be nice. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as Logo: Looks simple enough to be beloww TOO to me, but second opinions would be nice. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
the writer has the copyright now . pls remove this image that i uploaded. when i uploaded it was free but now, the writer has the copyright now. IQR (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sriveenkat as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted flick image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11245198@N04/4253910346: Clearly below COM:TOO, but scope may be a bit of an issue. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork. Nanahuatl (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Disagree As can be seen from here, @Oguzhanakkok claims that this is his own work, he claims that he is holding the legitimate right to share the illustration with Creative Commons licence. For this reason, I object to its deletion. TarantaBabu (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- I disagree. It's funny that it's cited as a copyright reason. I am the author. These character designs are from the content of my book Turkish Mythology Monster Corpus, which has not yet been released. Since I am a utilitarian-oriented person, I personally uploaded their 4K resolution printouts as creative commons. If you can prove that the work does not belong to me, I will delete it myself. If you wish, I can prove it with all the raw files from the sketch stages. Oguzhanakkok (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uploader's own work, there's no copyright infringement Necatorina (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork. Nanahuatl (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree As can be seen from here, @Oguzhanakkok claims that this is his own work, he claims that he is holding the legitimate right to share the illustration with Creative Commons licence. For this reason, I object to its deletion. TarantaBabu (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's funny that it's cited as a copyright reason. I am the author. These character designs are from the content of my book Turkish Mythology Monster Corpus, which has not yet been released. Since I am a utilitarian-oriented person, I personally uploaded their 4K resolution printouts as creative commons. If you can prove that the work does not belong to me, I will delete it myself. If you wish, I can prove it with all the raw files from the sketch stages. Oguzhanakkok (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Not own work, although the original photograph may be free under Canadian public domain laws. This can only be confirmed after the proper source information and licensing is given, which this file does not have. Yue🌙 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The ed17 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: Nominating for deletion under COM:GCSD #7 because I'm pretty sure this violates COM:FOP US — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- To expand on my rationale there, I'm assuming that the text and images on the sign are covered under COM:FOP US (the artworks section). The bottom image is of a 1987 parade, so the sign was installed after that date. If that FOP thought is incorrect, I apologize. (Note that I am the original uploader.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Unused, superseded by SVG. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Even if there is an SVG, the other version should be kept (one reason being that it may not always be inferior to the SVG). Also, the motto mark in the original is not included in the SVG, making it an incorrect flag. If the other is deleted, no versions will contain the correct flag Alexander vee (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: @Alexander vee: The motto can be added to the SVG by an editor; but photographs of the flag show it without a motto. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please do so, in an official portrait of the new chief (2024) the motto can be seen (small and blurry, but it is there) portrait can be found at x.com/Politie/status/1763236371060105490 I stand by my claim Alexander vee (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
