Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2004/11

• Duplicate of Category:Birds - Andre Engels 08:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted -- Chris 73 12:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Duplicate of Category:Insecta - Andre Engels 08:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted -- Chris 73 12:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• wrong name, correct name Lythrum salicaria already exists TeunSpaans 22:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Made this into an redirect. -- Chris 73 12:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• redundant through Image:Somerights.png -- Chris 73 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Grunt 18:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Uncropped but unused version of Image:27mph.jpg -- Chris 73 13:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Grunt 18:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Uses Template:Screenshot, which on the en wiki en:Template:Screenshot says the content is copyrighted but fair use. I think we do not accept fair use images, so this one (unfortunately) has to go -- Chris 73 07:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted. Nadavspi 22:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Copyrighted, has to be deleted -- Chris 73 12:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Aurevilly. --Nadavspi 00:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Claims public domain, but from the looks of it, it is based on something in the PD, but with more work than simple photographing and scanning. - Andre Engels 12:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Correct. Original image looks like this. I overwrote the processed yellow image with the original image, and removed the deletion tag. -- Chris 73 12:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Probably copyrighted, unapprobiate, used for vandalism on en: andy 20:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted, most inapropriate and copyrighted -- Chris 73 23:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no pic--Shizhao 06:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -- Chris 73 06:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• not copyright info--Shizhao 01:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks copyrighted -- Chris 73 03:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted by Chris 73 13:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• not public domain. copyvio. and Shimonoseki, Japan--Shizhao 06:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think a 19th century photo can be copyrighted. A-giâu 23:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The treaty is from 1895, but from when is the photo? (Sorry, can't read chinese) -- Chris 73 00:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Good question. As far as I can tell, the photo isn't dated and the text is of no help. Alas, even the name of the locale is unclear from the description page. A-giâu 02:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • After digging around a bit: The original building (the Shunpanro Hotel in Shimonoseki) was "burned down" during WWII and then rebuilt. (See also: [1]) So if this photo is trying to show the original building (the "place" where the treaty was signed), it could not have been taken later than 1945. Indeed, a very similar photo here (from the hotel's website) shows the old hotel. So it appears that the uploaded photo is at least older than 1945. A-giâu 22:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • We can't confirm that this photograph takes time, it may take recently, but through the processing of the software==Shizhao 08:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced the original picture with a new one from another source. Both pictures look almost identical. I am quite sure that this picture is a historical picture, since I have seen it too many times at different occasions. Anyway, if the original one had the copyright problem (it was from a website owned by a Chinese online newspaper), I do not think the new one have this problem (it is from a Taiwanese website about Taiwanese history). I have removed the "delete request" from this photo already. --Wdshu 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how that would mean it is not copyrighted. If the picture is copyrighted, it is copyrighted whatever website you take it from. Re-adding delete request. On the other hand, I do agree that it looks rather old. Unfortunately, photographs from the 1950s also look "rather old". - Andre Engels 20:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consensus to delete not reached. -- Grunt 19:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just awful images, seemed to be a test. -- Chris 73 00:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

del! --Shizhao 01:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Deleted -- Chris 73 07:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:Young monks of Drepung.jpg - Image:Buddha painted on a rock wall in Tibet.jpg - Image:Om Mani Padme Hum.jpg - Image:Lhasa Valley in Tibet.jpg - Image:Potala Palace.jpg - Image:White Palace of the Potala.jpg - Image:Snow Lions protect the entrance to the Potala Pallace.jpg - Image:Jokhang Temple in Tibet.jpg

These Picture are CC by-nc-sa (see http://www.onwardtibet.org/index.html ) but tagget here CC-by-sa. Clear Copyvio. -guety 03:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, they would have to be deleted. I have contacted the user that uploaded them and asked him for a comment -- Chris 73 14:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • User asked the source if they are willing to release it as CC-by-sa. Please hold deletion for now. -- Chris 73 15:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Copyright holder response, more to come:

Michael,
Thanks for taking interest in my photographs and site on Tibet. 
I am considering your proposal for a license change, and will 
get back to you shortly!
Thanks,
Nathan

--Chris 73 23:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There is no need to hurry, I don't (and nobody else, I think) want them to be deleted, only if it must be. -guety 23:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I love the images, too, but if they have the wrong type of license, they would gave to be deleted eventually -- Chris 73 00:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Quadell was able to get a valid license for the images! Yeah! -- Chris 73 13:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Polish source does not have any copyright information, this image and the cropped parts thereof may be copyrighted. -- Chris 73 03:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure stuff such as glagolica letters can actually be copyrighted. Ausir 22:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But arranging letters drawn with a particular font in a specific layout may be copyrightable somewhere, more so if the lettering is hand-drawn. A-giâu 23:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From w:Copyright: "In the United States, typeface designs are not copyrightable, but may be patentable if novel enough. In Europe, Germany (in 1981) and the UK (in 1989) have passed laws making typeface designs copyrightable. The UK law is even retroactive, so designs produced before 1989 are also copyrighted, if the copyrights wouldn't have already expired (the German one is not retroactive)." -- Chris 73 00:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will remove the deletion notice, since the copyright seems to be OK. -- Chris 73 03:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notice removed, nothing deleted -- Chris 73 03:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

logo, no free --Shizhao 03:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• delete (appears to be registered trademark; also no copyright info) A-giâu 23:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

copyvio --Shizhao 03:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -- Chris 73 03:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This informative art work ought to be in PD but most likely not. Delete. A-giâu 23:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no free --Shizhao 03:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, fair use claimed on wiki -- Chris 73 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete (alas, fairuse) A-giâu 23:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

copyvio--Shizhao 06:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -- Chris 73 06:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• No copyright info, delete. A-giâu 23:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm an evil conspirator of Microsoft - Andre Engels 18:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Do we do videos? -- Chris 73 02:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course we do. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...somehow I think the commons is not yet ready to accept videos, since either theyhave shitty quality or they need bandwith like hell -- Chris 73 11:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, but we only want them in ogg-format, because other formats aren't free. I don't agree with this, but alas, I'm just one person. - Andre Engels 20:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to convert it for you when I get the time. I myself agree with the ogg rule since avi is like fair-use (avi is patented and copyrighted). Bernard van der Wees 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The AVI format may be patented and copyrighted, but this is not a description of the format, it is a movie which is encoded in that format. Anthony 15:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Is avi patented? I had thought that the objection to avi's was more like the objection to wav's: they are huge files. [2] says "Unknown, probably none" under "Licensing and patent claims" 70.16.213.201 18:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Issued by Republic of China (Taiwan)/ 1995 "? public domain? copyvio! --Shizhao 01:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is no doubt that the stamp issued by the USA should be categorized as "public domain." As far as stamps issued by other countries are concerned, I just visited the English Wiki and found the following examples categorized as "public domain":

[3] | [4] | [5] | [6] |[7]

There examples are from countries such as Italy, India, Albania, and Vietnam. Most of them were issued in the 1990s. In terms of the stamps I uploaded here, all of them are from the official website of Postal Service, Republic of China. I believe all of them should be categorized as "public domain" as well. --Wdshu 02:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think these stamps are copyrighted unless explicitly given to the public domain by the government/postal agency that owns the copyrights (i.e. US stamps), or the copyright has expired. Just because the person scanning the stamps put them into the PD does not mean that the stams are PD. -- Chris 73 02:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

我很怀疑那几张邮票都属于public domain．在大部分国家，他们都是有版权的，美国我不知道是否如此？虽然联邦政府的材料属于public domain，但是邮政系统一般情况都比较特殊--Shizhao 02:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

< Translation of Shizhao's msg above: I really wonder if such stamples are all in the PD. In most countries, they're copyrighted. I'm not sure if this is the case in the US? Although the materials from the federal gov't belong to the PD, the postage system is usually an exception. > --Menchi 04:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This art work ought to be in PD but most likely not. Delete. A-giâu 23:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S. stamps issued since 1978 are not public domain (en:Public_domain_image_resources#U.S._postage_stamps)

It seems most of the Category:Stamps are copyrighted then -- Chris 73 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And Faroese stamps? e.g. this 2002 Faroe Island stamp is said to be PD. A-giâu 20:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See talk on the Village pump, Faroese are PD. -- Chris 73 07:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terrible image quality. Also Image:Igelösa kyrka, Gyllenkrookska gravkoret, sköld.jpg, Image:Odarslövs kyrkas orgel i Västra Hoby kyrka.jpg -- Chris 73 00:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currently used on the front page of the swedish wiki, please ensure no longer used before deletion -- Chris 73 05:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to know the significance of these images. Keep unless they are replaced or shown to be so insignificant that these low quality images are worse than nothing. Anthony 16:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 04:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

fair use --CR 23:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted -- Chris 73 23:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bad filename - has nothing to do with the content, even in my language (I made a mistake by saving the wrong image). The correct image was uploaded as Image:concavo_4.png (concave mirror, not conic mirror :-) Marcelo R. | @ 01:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted -- Chris 73 23:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Typo for Category:Brazil. - Andre Engels 21:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted -- Chris 73 23:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

equal to Image:Tetraeder-Animation.gif.(This is my false, sorry) --Burn 22:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted -- Chris 73 23:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

duplicate Image:Pope Pius III.jpg, uploaded incorrect name.--Suisui 07:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as speedy -- Chris 73 08:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't seem to manage to show or link to these images, which is probably why they are on Unused images. They are the first four images on that page.

• Nockenfahrschalter_einer_Stra%C3%9Fenbahn.jpg

Seems to be the same as Image:Tram switchgear.JPG

• Raitiovaunuja_Helsingiss%C3%A4_%28vanhoja_1970-luvun_vaunuja%29.jpg

A tram from Helsinki? Curiously, Image:Helsinkitram.jpg refuses to load for me, so I can't tell whether it's the same image.

loads fine here - not the same image. -- Duesentrieb 15:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

replaced by Image:FinnishTram.jpg Kneiphof 23:01, 29 Nov 2004 (CET)

• Exteri%F6r_av_koret%2C_Lunds_domkyrka%2C_Svenska_Filmj-journalen_1866.png
• J%E4tten_Finn_i_Lunds_domkyrka.jpg

These pictures are actually used in Lund. Maybe rename, to make usage easier, and remove them from that Unused image-list?

Ranveig 15:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason that these images are shown on Unused images is that there where some problems while uploading the pictures. Because of that, there are two versions of the images, one without description page wich was uploaded first, and one fully accessible with description page where the error has been fixed. The former description page seems to be redirected to the latter, somehow. For an example, se my contributions where there are some mysterious un-linked uploads. Väsk 19:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad to know there won't be problems with all non-standard filenames - but it should be possible for some admin or wizard to delete those files, shouldn't it? Now they're just in the way on that list. Ranveig 19:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has there been found any solution to this topic until now? --Roger Zenner -!- 14:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, sort of - we now have a nice collection of unused files at Commons:Really unused. Feel free to move or delete the discussion, anyone. -- Ranveig 22:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• a model of the Starship Enterprise probably made by the person who uploaded it, but I still think it might infringe the Star Trek copyrights... Ausir 22:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep, he did it with Blender. And it even does not look like Enterprise. -guety 02:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does look like Enterprise to me. And it's a derivative work of a copyrighted one. Ausir 22:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Transwiki to any wiki that uses it and delete. This is most likely fair use, but we don't allow fair use on the commons. Anthony 15:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 00:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Photoshopped. Looks humorous, but not sure if this can be used in an encyclopedia. Is listed however in Surreal photography, so it may be kept as an example if a license and source is added, and the consensus is to keep. I think this one can be deleted -- Chris 73 00:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the image if a license is found. It's only 21K and might potentially be useful in one project or another. Anthony 18:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted because it also had no copyright status identified. - Andre Engels 22:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, does this make any sense? -guety 01:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Agree with deletion. The image belongs on GNU and can be found there too. - Andre Engels 22:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted -- Chris 73 00:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted.-- Zy26 13:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It seems possible to me that the site mentioned is merely using a public domain work. Of course, I can't speak the language that site is in, so I don't know for sure. Can you explain why you think this is copyrighted? Anthony 18:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  There is a "Copyright © 2004 雷霆万钧 版权所有" at the bottom. The Chinese characters mean "Leitingwanjun All rights reserved". "雷霆万钧" is a name.--Zy26 01:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  It seems to me that that's a copyright on the whole page, not the image. Anthony 06:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Please someone with knowledge of Chinese copyright tell us how long it lasts. I assume that if this image is public domain, that is because of age. - Andre Engels 22:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• If the submitter isn't responding to queries, and we can't find out definitively whether or not this is public domain, I guess we've gotta delete. That's unfortunate, though. Anthony 16:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. is old image. Zhang Jinghui,Chinese, 1871 - 1954. On China the image is PD.--Shizhao 13:14, 7 12月 2004 (UTC)
  • Please specify the relevant laws - what period does Chinese law have, and from what occurence? - Andre Engels 11:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This category included ony one picture. Now new artice Monorail have been created; this article is listed in Category:Rail transport and Category:Public transport Kneiphof 17:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. There may be more pictures of monorails in the future. Also, if pictures are added to categories directly and not to articles then this will be useful -- Chris 73 23:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other pictures of Monorails in the future can go to Monorail rather than Category:Monorail. And keeping pages around just because they might be useful for changes of software in the future sounds like a bad idea. Especially if we're talking about pages that are re-created within 10 seconds (well, not today, but at days when Wikimedia is less slow). - Andre Engels 22:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This comes back to the problem: Do we add images to categories or to articles. Currently I am leaning towards images in categories, but the discussion on the village pump was not yet conclusive either way. -- Chris 73 00:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)