Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/28
August 28
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. it is really looking like advertisement. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, out of scope. It also appears to be from the UK, and thus likely protected by copyright. (Not willing to AGF on the CC-BY-4 license, which I can't confirm due to the link being down) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
appears to be text ad for company, and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Blurred. Hard to tell what the image is about. Nv8200p (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep beside from file name, i think image is good. it is just bad focus. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bad focus means bad image. There is nothing in this image or its description to give it any educational context. Keeping all these POS images makes it harder to find the good ones. IMHO. Nv8200p (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Worse than that is that these are likely copyvios. If the images are used by a company, we would need COM:VRT to keep them. However, we should probably not keep images that advise people to do prank calls. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside spammy sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dharius~commonswiki (talk · contribs)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- these are direct violations of COM:Advertisement. links are no no 😡.
Speedy delete. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for nonnotable yoga practice; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted music by Adoniran Barbosa Vitor Hello? 00:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
appears to be an edited version of an image online at least as early as 2013, before claimed 2015 date; unclear whether it's this company but the license is dubious https://tineye.com/search/986e5483269b74e037f82ccac260c3cc979831ac?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
No indication the picture was released under the given license. C F A 💬 01:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Videos of GaaSyy
- File:【政見放送】NHK党 秋田県 本田幸久.webm
- File:【政見放送】ガーシー党池高生.webm
- File:【政見放送】ガーシー党舟橋夢人.webm
- File:【政見放送】参議院選挙NHK党２０２２年.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露①.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露②.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露③.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露④.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑤.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑥.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑦.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑧.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑨.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑪.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑫.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑭.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑮.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑯.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑰.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑱.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑳.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉑.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉒.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉓.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉔.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉕.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉖.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉗.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉘.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉙.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉚.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉛.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉜.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉝.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉞.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉟.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊱.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊲.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊳.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊴.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊵.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊶.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊷.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊸.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊹.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊺.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊻.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊼.webm
copyvio: These videos are probably unauthorized copied, NHK応援チャンネル does not have the right to publish these under the CC BY 3.0, and I think the license is not valid. --Momiji-Penguin (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete i slightly checked videos. some of them stolen videos that uploaded later and claimed free licensed. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep ("bd" username); no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BD Archive (talk · contribs)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:FOP Kazakhstan, no FOP in Kazakhstan ~delta (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Kazakhstan ~delta (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:TOO, logo exceeds threshold of originality ~delta (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, this was already deleted without notice to this thread. Was it a British school? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Because? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO ~delta (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to belong to en:Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center_Crane_Division, and thus is PD-US-Navy. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Per PaterMcFly. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
A vandalism of pl.wikipedia.org Kggucwa (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
one of hundreds of images of human penis... out of scope Threecharlie (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Threecharlie But does the context make it interesting? It does indeed show a penis resting on vegetation. Someone obviously finds that interesting. Brianjd (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Someone...who?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Threecharlie Whoever uploaded this. Also, if penises in artwork are notable, then surely real penises in different contexts are useful too. Brianjd (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where you see an artistic message I see the usual narcissist who wants to display his reproductive apparatus for anything but such purposes. These are opinions, but as long as there are only two of us it's a nice 50/50, let's wait for other opinions. Good luck.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Out of scope, as per Threecharlie. --Marcok (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where you see an artistic message I see the usual narcissist who wants to display his reproductive apparatus for anything but such purposes. These are opinions, but as long as there are only two of us it's a nice 50/50, let's wait for other opinions. Good luck.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Threecharlie Whoever uploaded this. Also, if penises in artwork are notable, then surely real penises in different contexts are useful too. Brianjd (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Someone...who?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep I have also struggled to whether nominated this file to DR or not. As Brianjd mentioned there is no image of penis on the vegetation (Maybe yes, but I think there is not much). I also think that this may be distinctive enough to be kept on Commons, but I won't be upset if this image ended up deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 11:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary ugly dick. Replace any use and delete. 186.172.152.104 03:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Was previously kept. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to keep all the penis images you want in your personal collection, let's see what the people who care more about Commons will say about this request. 186.172.152.104 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Penis on grass? Is that a Chinese dish? Tiger penis I suppose... 186.172.152.104 13:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to keep all the penis images you want in your personal collection, let's see what the people who care more about Commons will say about this request. 186.172.152.104 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Penis on the earth.jpg Taylor 49 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Scaled-down dupe of File:Secretary Pompeo and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (43814331801).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, before today I never saw the image😢 Baginda 480 (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hope the image can delete fast Baginda 480 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from an external site, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Question What makes you believe it's not the uploaders own work? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- no metadata, low resolution.... i would have mark it with "no permission" if i see this first. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is my own work. I can prove this is my photo with individual photos of the items in the photo.
- Please do not delete until I have had the opportunity to prove this is my photo NuManDavid (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is nonsense from wherever you look at it. Own work or not is not important when it's dick spam. 186.172.160.88 13:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Proof Weighted Foreskin Restoration.png is my photo - NuManDavid (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- So where we at? NuManDavid (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Point of no return, Deletion. 186.172.160.88 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Small size and no exif is expressly cited on COM:DR as not a deletion reason per se. NuManDavid, if you can really prove it's your photo, contact COM:VRT, but why don't you provide a full-size photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever
A male has attached a foreskin restoration device to his penis and added weights. - A new photo NuManDavid (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this is ridiculous. There is absolutely no good reason to think this isn’t the uploader’s own work and it’s clearly in scope as a depiction of a unique body modification practice. Please leave this user alone already, especially you IP. Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need you to defend me or my work pilgarlic NuManDavid (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone is allowed to express an opinion on a deletion requests thread, and it's definitely not to your advantage to disrespect someone who supports keeping your photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- my opinion is you can take your opinion for a long walk off a short dock. And Dronebogus lost my respect a long time ago. NuManDavid (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- And my opinion is that your contributions are appreciated, but you should probably be warned about your attitude. Have a good night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- my opinion is you can take your opinion for a long walk off a short dock. And Dronebogus lost my respect a long time ago. NuManDavid (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you calling me bald? Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone is allowed to express an opinion on a deletion requests thread, and it's definitely not to your advantage to disrespect someone who supports keeping your photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need you to defend me or my work pilgarlic NuManDavid (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(10471496575).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, per nomination. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Reshad Reshidli (talk · contribs)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep who is blocked for spam elsewhere; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
QQSPEED is an online game product produced in mainland China. The design of the image is likely to exceed the threshold for copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
personal, unused low-quality snapshot, useless without context Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted content, this is an edited image of the game character "Among Us" + this file is classified as out the scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Screenshots of copyrighted games. Astrinko (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I saw a whole category of images of the same era that's why I uploaded this one, I thought that meant these old advertisements are no longer under copyright? Nesnad (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Question Would warning signs that were likely set up by a state institution fall under "no FoP in Japan for 2D works", though? Aren't street signs and the like usually copyright exempt? Nakonana (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quote from the page on copyright rules by territory for Japan: not eligible for copyright are "public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, incorporated administrative agencies ... or local incorporated administrative agencies." Nakonana (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- oh yeah, this is straight up COM:DEMINIMIS, Delete. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM applies, as this does not focus on any specific workImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It focus on the entire sex toy package. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM applies, as this does not focus on any specific workImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Japan considers toys to be ineligible for copyright as per the page there. Does this mean it should not be deleted? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, US do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. On Commons, the toy should be copyright-free in both the source country (Japan) and the US. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel does the fact that this is a religious object play any role? I cannot speak 100% to this without finding a source that discusses them, but I think these are believed to be a kind of amulet with protective properties. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a widespread phenomenon at shrines and it is unfortunate to see it not being documented Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's unfortunate, but on Commons we had to respect copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel you probably should propose this entire category for deletion then Category:Doubutsu mikuji but is there any way to consolidate the deletion discussion under one page? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- We should discuss this other deletion request here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shikaumi_Shrine-Okimono_omikuji.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think an amulet is a toy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- We should discuss this other deletion request here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shikaumi_Shrine-Okimono_omikuji.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel you probably should propose this entire category for deletion then Category:Doubutsu mikuji but is there any way to consolidate the deletion discussion under one page? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's unfortunate, but on Commons we had to respect copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a widespread phenomenon at shrines and it is unfortunate to see it not being documented Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel does the fact that this is a religious object play any role? I cannot speak 100% to this without finding a source that discusses them, but I think these are believed to be a kind of amulet with protective properties. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, US do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. On Commons, the toy should be copyright-free in both the source country (Japan) and the US. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/09#Are amulets toys?--A1Cafel (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Whether it is a toy or not, it is still a derivative work. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials: Book covers Michel Bakni (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1975 self portrait? Not own work Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This photo is in my possession, the subject of the photo left it to me in her inheritance, and I know for a fact that she made it herself (she often did this) with the use of a self-timer and tripod.
- Thank you for your mindfulness! GksEOauJAn (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please contact COM:VRT so that this photo is not unnecessarily deleted, and thank you for uploading it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
_(6252330273).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Derivative image of a subway ad. FOP in Canada does not apply to 2D works. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
_(6252330273).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted as part of my cleanup of uploads russavia (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
_(6252330273).jpg){kind=link}
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(10471496575).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Picture of a long ago Project-Team at DFKI-Bremen. Only marginally related to DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
_(10471496575).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
_(10471496575).jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Picture of a long ago Project Team (2013) at DFKI Bremen. Only marginally related to DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Wikipedia was obviously misused as a cheap file repository for this photo. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Spiritual2001 (talk · contribs)
The ones of Oribamise are likely from pingsunday.com per google (and the watermark bottom left). The other was found here in 2019 https://www.brila.net/team-nigeria-tennis-captain-solanke-excited-with-victorious-outing-at-the-attf-junior-championship/
- File:Esther ORIBAMISE WTT Feeder 2024 Corpus Christi.jpg
- File:Esther ORIBAMISE WTT Feeder 2024 Corpus Christi Day 1 1.jpg
- File:Azeez Solanke In Play.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. I already marked other uploads form the same user as clear copyvios. Günther Frager (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
A poster from one of the hundreds of projects at DFKI! Absolutely superfluous picture that says nothing about DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why this should be a deletion reason. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will take a picture of a toilet in the DFKI building and declare it as related to the organization. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is an educational poster, relevant to Wikimedia, submitted to WikidataCon 2019 (and categorized as such). I see zero reason to delete. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Kevin Payravi. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Low quality graph that's unused, out of scope. Jonteemil (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation Relayed (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! It seems there was a misunderstanding about the photo. The photo or the YouTube video has a 'Creative Commons (reuse allowed)' license. However, I changed the link because it was broken. Royiswariii (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Just saw the original video. I thought the video was taken down, hence thinking it's a copyvio. Will close this request. Relayed (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (all images nominated by this user) No reason for deletion given. Photo is not blurred or otherwise technically unusable. Images on commons don't need to be favorable (for whatever). PaterMcFly (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main entrance no longer looks like this. I have uploaded a photo that shows the current state. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the entrance has changed, then that is a good reason to keep this image for the benefit of anybody researching the history of the building. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main entrance no longer looks like this. I have uploaded a photo that shows the current state. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main entrance no longer looks like this. I have uploaded a photo that shows the current state. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you want to delete history? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The main entrance no longer looks like this. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI in outdated resolution. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, file is in use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Going by this and OmegaFallons talk page, as well as my own experiences dealing with it there seems to be a lot of problems with this template. Just to name a few it leads to a bunch of overcategorization. As well as the addition of pointless and obtuse dublicate categories to category structures that are already complex enough without the template being involved. There is also no way what-so-ever to deal with that because the template makes it impossible to remove or otherwise delete the problematic categories it created and added.
It doesn't help that OmegaFallon seems unable or unwilling to deal with most, if not all, of the issues it's causing. There was also no discussion about it or approval by the wider before it was implemented. Which there really should have been considering the massive number of categories it involves. Apparently the template isn't super intuitive or easy to edit either and it doesn't help that there's no documentation. So it should just be deleted. There's no reason we need a template like this one for this particular thing anyway. Nor is there a valid reason to make it impossible to edit or remove categories from thousands of subcategories just because a single user thinks their way of categorizing things is the best way to do it. Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion is well possible, including 6 stupid redirects, after removing ca 7'000 transclusions. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly how they work but apparently there's also like 9 subtempletes that will have to be dealt with as well. So its certainly going to be a hassle to deal with, but that's just all the more reason to delete it IMO. Clearly the things way to complex. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once the main template is deleted, the 9 subpages probably can be deleted as well, unless it turns out that they are used by some other template. I discourage overcomplex poorly working or poorly documented templates. Still, the 7'000 transclusions should be removed before deletion. Immediate deletion would not ruin Commons, still it would show ugly red links on 7'000 pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair. You think I should nominate them for deletion now or it be better to just let an admin deal with them after this is closed depending on how it goes? (I think you could argue they should probably be deleted regardless of what ends up being the outcome of this, but I don't want to screw anything up by nominating for them for deletion in the meantime if there's some wierd dependency thing involved in it or something). --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once the main template is deleted, the 9 subpages probably can be deleted as well, unless it turns out that they are used by some other template. I discourage overcomplex poorly working or poorly documented templates. Still, the 7'000 transclusions should be removed before deletion. Immediate deletion would not ruin Commons, still it would show ugly red links on 7'000 pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? You should probably explicitly nominate them in a separate request. The risk with the task is that some categories become uncategorized. Category:Geography by country by continent uses Template:Double MetaCat whereas Category:Topography by country by continent uses Template:MetaCat, and there are probably other types. Do you want to eliminate all meta categories with double criteria? This is a major principal question. Alternatively, the templates Template:Double MetaCat and Template:MetaCat could be simplified and merged. It's undeniably a mess now. Not sure whether all meta categories with double criteria deserve deletion. On the User_talk:OmegaFallon#Template:Country_by_year_by_topic user page there is some discussion, but not a consensus for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? No. I want to delete however many it takes to cleanup the mess. If that's three, cool. If it's all 7000, that's cool to. I didn't look at every single category before I started this though because it's really a separate issue IMO to the overall issues caused by the template. I did decide to take this particular route instead of just nominating the 7000 categories for deletion in separate individual deletion requests though because the categories will just recreated or added back to other ones if they are deleted without template being dealt with in the meantime.
- So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? You should probably explicitly nominate them in a separate request. The risk with the task is that some categories become uncategorized. Category:Geography by country by continent uses Template:Double MetaCat whereas Category:Topography by country by continent uses Template:MetaCat, and there are probably other types. Do you want to eliminate all meta categories with double criteria? This is a major principal question. Alternatively, the templates Template:Double MetaCat and Template:MetaCat could be simplified and merged. It's undeniably a mess now. Not sure whether all meta categories with double criteria deserve deletion. On the User_talk:OmegaFallon#Template:Country_by_year_by_topic user page there is some discussion, but not a consensus for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- But the fact is that most, if not, all "meta categories with double criteria" are either just totally pointless, duplicate existing categories, make no sense, clearly go against the guidelines or have some combination of those issues. So say I have 5 of those 7000 categories deleted. Then all it takes is someone adding this template to something and we're right back where we started. That's fine, but I do think that we as users should have the say in how and when this template is used and it's pretty clear we don't have the say in either one.
- In a perfect world that could probably be solved by pairing it down and documenting it. I don't really see that happening though and I rather live in reality then let it continue causing problems for no other reason then...What exactly? "Someone created it so it must be worth having"? It seems like you at least agree with me that it's a mess. It's fine if you don't think deleting the template is the way to clean it up. But realistically what actual alternative to deal with it beyond that is there at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- As currently used, it certainly has some inappropriate results, e.g. it gives Category:Buildings by function by condition a non-existent parent Category:Countries by function by condition. Fayenatic london (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Lol that category makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as nobody wants to fix it. ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The template causes problems at Category:Music by genre, please at least fix it. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The concept is good, but the execution can be hard to work with and most people probably wouldn't know how to fix it. In addition, there are probably more special cases for "double meta cats" than there are for "single meta cats", and to accommodate them all would make the code very complex. I came across this discussion because I found the template populating Category:Countries by city by year (which isn't defined) with several kinds of things, none of which were countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also just found the template populating Category:Countries by color by country with things that aren't countries. I think this and the one I mentioned above were supposed to be "Categories by" instead of "Countries by". --Auntof6 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep I would keep the template, as it also has advantages. A uniform, precise categorization. The template is used in an almost four-digit number. If it were simply deleted, it would lead to chaos, tear huge gaps in the existing category system and lead to uncontrolled growth with different sorting for similar structures. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
blurry, low quality photo, out of focus, there are plenty of photos illustrating the same topic better — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kaptanlorch (talk · contribs)
Series of unused files without any description. Out of scope.
- File:Gradient0002.jpg
- File:Walpaper gradient00001.jpg
- File:Home icone4.png
- File:Ana menü.png
- File:Menudjn.png
- File:Essay hhj.png
- File:Instagramvbbv.png
- File:Walpaper ppr.jpg
- File:Fdjsjs nsjs.png
- File:Jsgsisjdhj jck.png
- File:Sjjeksnxhsjjs.png
- File:Sjsjdjdkhdduaisgg.png
- File:Kaptanlorch hdhsjshdjdk.png
- File:Skeheuiwhshdik.png
- File:RobotechfygubeDbunh.png
Jcb (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prakashsmileyps (talk · contribs)
Series of unused logos without proper description. Out of scope.
- File:Welcometops.png
- File:Ps-ps.png
- File:HindiTv.png
- File:1000071080 V2.gif
- File:Psgiflo.gif
- File:Km 20230907 1440p 30f 20230907 201702.gif
- File:SportsTv.png
- File:TeluguTv.png
- File:PsAstro.png
- File:PicsartAstro.png
- File:TeluguPs2.png
- File:PsCricketLinkPSTv.png
- File:TeluguPs.png
- File:PsCricketLinktext.gif
- File:PsCricketLinkPS.png
- File:PsPrakashsmiley.png
- File:PSsmiley.png
- File:PsCricket.png
- File:PsCricketLink.png
- File:Pscricketlink.png
Jcb (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
Architect is Max Dudler, how is still alive. Up today we don't have a permission from Max Dudler. Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. See also previous discussions.
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 08.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 09.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 12.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 13.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 14.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 15.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 17.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 18.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 20.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 21.jpg
- File:Berlin U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.webm
- File:Berlin-Mitte U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel-001.jpg
- File:Berlin-Mitte U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg
- File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 2023-02-25 01.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 2023-02-25 02.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 2023-02-25 03.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel-msu-1107-.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel-msu-1113-.jpg
Lukas Beck (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep copyright extremism see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama & Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_in_Germany. I do believe these photos are covered by freedom of panorama. Multichill (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama does clearly not apply to interior shots in Germany. This is clearly stated in this section. How do you come to the conclusion that this should suddenly no longer be true? You even link to the right article. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Picture * File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg was shot during an offical press ceremony by the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), including an accreditation process. Only selected persons had access. The owner (BVG) permited photograph shots. In this case, freedom of panorama does not exist at all. Further, the train is here the main topic of the picture. So whats the problem? Trouper3000 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- owner and copyright holder are two different thinks! Lukas Beck (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- The architect designed the station in behalf of the BVG so they should have the rights. Otherwise they could not make such an event. I think normally we trust accreditations, especially if they are from public institutions. GPSLeo (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- owner and copyright holder are two different thinks! Lukas Beck (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Picture * File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg was shot during an offical press ceremony by the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), including an accreditation process. Only selected persons had access. The owner (BVG) permited photograph shots. In this case, freedom of panorama does not exist at all. Further, the train is here the main topic of the picture. So whats the problem? Trouper3000 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama does clearly not apply to interior shots in Germany. This is clearly stated in this section. How do you come to the conclusion that this should suddenly no longer be true? You even link to the right article. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The proposal to accept photos inside train stations in Germany has not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . It was finalized after this DR was started. So regrettably, these photos have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
Copyright protection! German freedom of panorama does not apply for interior shots. The architect is Max Dudler, who is still alive.
- File:Berlin U-Bahnstation - Museumsinsel (Oktober 2023) 02.jpg
- File:Berlin U-Bahnstation - Museumsinsel (Oktober 2023) 03.jpg
- File:Berlin U-Bahnstation - Museumsinsel (Oktober 2023) 04.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lukas Beck (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing sufficiently creative to copyright. It's a simple granite stone wall and a blue ceiling. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, I revised my desicion, per this discussion on my talk page. , the ceiling it is not simple blue, it is a starry sky based on creative design. Ping User:IronGargoyle for courtesy. -- Ellywa (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
Photo's of this starry ceiling are uploaded again and again. This is not allowed, the design is still copyrighted, and there is no FOP in Germany. Photos inside train stations in Germany have in addition not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . Therefore these images should be deleted imho.
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 02.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 03.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 04.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 05.jpg
Ellywa (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- "there is no FOP in Germany". Wrong. 100% wrong. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcus Cyron it seems clear in the law itself that German FoP does not apply to all interior architectures. From the law itself (in English translation): "(1) It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade." Only building exteriors can be freely photographed and shared commercially on the Internet stock archives like Commons, Flickr, Unsplash etc. with legality from German law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you not willing to understand? "there is no FOP in Germany" was written. This is definetly wrong. Untrue. And again, also for you: We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness! Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- But the wording makes buildings the exception, not the rule? Like: the rule is you can photograph everything that is in public space. The only thing that you can not photograph despite it being a permanent public space are interiors of buildings. But anything other than buildings can be photographed even if it's the interiors of that "something". Are train (or metro) stations/platforms "buildings"? They don't have a façade — does that mean that they are not buildings? They are also permanently publicly accessible and they serve (at least occasionally) as underpasses (or overpasses) and thus are "paths"? So, do they fall under the "rule" or do they fall under the "exception" that specifically only applies to "buildings"? I would call a metro station a "building". It's rather a "tunnel". And in Germany, metro stations usually aren't accessed through a building-like structure either. There are just stairs on the street that lead downstairs like to an underpass. The stations also often have an exit on both sides — just like "tunnels". The stations are also just platforms within a metro tunnel. It's like an underground road for a metro, where the station is not a "building" of its own but just a "pit stop" / parking space for metros. It's just a niche within a tunnel. And tunnel interiors would fall under FoP I'd think because they are basically just roads with a ceiling; they are not buildings. Nakonana (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- According to the building regulations (Musterbauordung) train stations are buildings through the permission process is different to other buildings. In the fee schedule (HOAI) they are not in the building category as they have their own category. But they are not public places like streets as they are owned by a public company and not directly by a public authority and they are not declared as public streets. GPSLeo (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcus Cyron it seems clear in the law itself that German FoP does not apply to all interior architectures. From the law itself (in English translation): "(1) It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade." Only building exteriors can be freely photographed and shared commercially on the Internet stock archives like Commons, Flickr, Unsplash etc. with legality from German law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The reversal above is clearly wrong. Sometimes we adhere too much to consistent decisions even when the past decisions were clearly wrong. Just having pinpoint lights in a ceiling is not sufficiently creative. Note that there is nothing artistic about their placement. It is a simple repeating pattern. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete -- I don't think it has to be a complex painting or the like. Sometimes it's also a simple but creative idea what counts, and in case of a "starry sky"-like ceiling of an underground station it's definitely a creative idea. And yes, according to German law interior shots, including public interiors, are not FoP-covered. @Marcus Cyron: does Wikimedia Deutschland do any effort to get German FoP laws amended in more liberal direction for us? --A.Savin 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think there are definitely efforts in the background. There was also the idea that we need to bring this question to the court in some way but in the past there was not a singe known case where the architect of a train or underground station tried to enforce the copyright on the building. GPSLeo (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- How should I know? I don't have any ties to this club anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- There I see only a {{PD-textlogo}}. Yes definitely, architectural design is more complex anyway. --A.Savin 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @A.Savin perhaps Rosenzweig is still a member of Wikimedia Deutschland? I have to admit, while Germany is the birthplace of FoP and an antithesis of France which is against commercial FoP, the FoP law does seem outdated and only applicable to the era before the prevalence of information technology and digital media. In particular, German courts tend to not give FoP rights to photographers who use drones or helicopters to photograph works from air. The German FoP, by its essence, is almost the same as its incarnation during much of the 20th century (and was originally giving rights to painters who reproduce buildings and sculptures in their paintings and then to sell those paintings without permissions from architects or sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm not a Wikimedia member. --Rosenzweig τ 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also wouldn't say that the ceiling is star-like. Those just round LED lamps in a blue-painted ceiling. They don't have a star-shape (in the way that stars are often represented in art 🌟 ). It's also not a starry sky because you can't see stars when the sky is blue; you can only see them at night when the star is nearly black; and stars have "random" placement, they don't come in lines and rows like here. Would you still say that it is a starry sky or a creative ceiling if the ceiling was painted light blue (like during day time) or even red/orange to represent sunset? Nakonana (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep A blue ceiling with small white dots in pretty much the most square/generic pattern possible, and as such far below the TOO. Weather the (obvious) intent is to depict a night sky or anything else is irrelevant, what matters is the work itself and that is too simple. If the copyright
paranoiavigilance is too stong, we can also crop out the sky. ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)- Cropping the ceiling won't help at all. It is the design as a whole which matters in term of possible copyright. Including: the ceiling, the lighting, the walls, the columns... etc.pp. --A.Savin 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per COM:UA, Germany has a higher threshold of originality for applied art, and this remains a VERY simple design. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Cropping the ceiling won't help at all. It is the design as a whole which matters in term of possible copyright. Including: the ceiling, the lighting, the walls, the columns... etc.pp. --A.Savin 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
For the same reason as all other deletion requests before. There is no FoP for interior views in Germany.
Lukas Beck (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Das verstehe ich nicht. Author von diesen Design braucht Geld um solche Fotos zu posten? Ich dachte es ist Ehre und Reklame für ihm.
- Also, es gilt für alle U-Bahn Stationen in Deutschland? Penguin9 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- In Deutschland haben wir diese Einschränkung betreffend Innenaufnahmen und, wie auch anderswo, wenn seit dem Tod des Autors (hier: des Architekten) noch keine 70 Jahre vergangen sind. Bedeutet: beispielsweise dieses U-Bahn-Foto ist für Commons unbedenklich, da es eine Außenaufnahme ist und für solche hierzulande in jedem Fall Panoramafreiheit gilt. Und bei Fotos von U-Bahnstationen, die von Alfred Grenander (gestorben 1931) entworfen sind, sind sowohl Außen- als auch Innenaufnahmen unbedenklich. --A.Savin 00:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}