Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/30

29 June 2024

1 July 2024

Deletion requests on 30 June 2024

June 30

Keep this user’s files have been nominated for deletion so many times the mainstream media is covering it. I don’t think posting a link to one’s social media is automatically an advertisement, and the file itself is high quality and in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toalha da copa do mundo de 2014.JPG

Derivative work of a copyrighted logo A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Charles svb (talk · contribs)

all other uploads of account have been deleted. These seem likely to have been overlooked. The account seems to have been abondened on wn.wp. Umlikely [own] work. COPYVIO

C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 왕예화 (talk · contribs)

Varying quality and sizes, I've just deleted 3 "own work" as copyvios per their respective DRs. No reason to believe these are own work as well.

--Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni Torres.JPG

Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ese pide eliminar porque el archivo no es de carácter educativo y actualmente se está usando la foto para dañar la imagen de la persona Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se solicita la baja del archivo {{speedydelete|imagen privada no educativa}} Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni Torres y Ana Vilma de Escobar.jpg

Se solicita la eliminación porque el Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cortar la foto en dos, guardar la parte de la señora y borrar la parte de este joven (original upload) por favor. 186.173.153.60 11:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni Torres y Gloria Salguero Gross.jpg

Se solicita la eliminación porque el Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El archivo no es de carácter educativo ni contribuye a la generación de conocimiento Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - Proceed as I proposed above with a similar file. 186.173.153.60 11:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waespi taloula 01.jpg

Non inédit (https://lepouce.info/tal-de-retour-sur-scene-avec-un-nouveau-nom/) et marqué comme "travail personnel" Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disneyland Viewliner Train, 1957.jpg

A 1957 photograph that is unlikely to be the own work of the person running the Flickr stream. There is no explanation on the Flickr stream of how else he would be the copyright holder. We would doubt this as an own work claim if it were uploaded locally to begin with, so I think we should apply the same standards to it as a Flickr image. May be PD for other reasons, but without accurate provenance this is very hard to verify. Its first online publication seems to be on the blog of the Flickr stream owner in 2009, where unfortunately questions about the image went unanswered. Felix QW (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being the copyright holder of that image would be very serious if that were true, so please confirm if that is officially the case. Otherwise, I'd assume good faith. It's not impossible that the person is the copyright holder, afterall. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 20:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible, but still implausible. It will not be his own work, since he is unlikely even to have been alive in 1957, and the Walt Disney company itself featured it on their own website here. To me, this rises to significant doubt. I find it easier to assess such claims when made by users directly on Commons, since there at least uploaders have to commit to ẃhy they own the copyright: it being their own work, or inherited, etc., and thus it is easier to assess the plausibility of that particular claim. Felix QW (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed an image taken by the Walt Disney Company, have you seen any instance of a copyright notice? Per this link from Cornell University [1], any image taken between 1929 and 1977 (this attraction only operated between 1957 and 1958 before being immediately replaced by other Disneyland attractions) without a copyright notice would put it in the public domain. Disney is usually very good about pairing copyright notices with every image it showcases, and if the source you provided is an official Disney source, and given that there is no copyright notice on the image itself, that in fact proves that they overlooked adding a notice to this specific image. In this instance, we would simply change the license tag to public domain on Commons. Side note: this reminds me of the wealth of Wikipedia featured articles for classic movies that get away with having screenshots from the movies in the articles by taking those screenshots from the trailers for the movie, which in the past were overlooked in terms of copyrighting. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding practice here at Commons only to accept {{PD-US-no-notice}} claims where we have actual proof of a physical 1929-1977 copy of the image without a notice. The online publication from Disney itself is from long after 1977 and therefore does not require a notice in the first place. In this case, we have no idea about its publication history at all. It may very well have only been published in some magazine or other, where it would have been covered by a central copyright notice for the whole magazine. Felix QW (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Viewliner Train of Tomorrow

Felix QW (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JocaZlatni (talk · contribs)

varying sizes and quality. multiple cameras, some with watermark. Doubtful own work

--Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 09:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suomalainen Kirjakauppa Aleksi.jpg

Based on the uploader's user name, the stated photographer (Niclas Mäkelä) is not the uploader so not own work. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:How To VB.gif

Derivative work of the Wiley and Sons publication by Dr Paul Gaugniuc that is shown in the first couple of frames. This probably refers to this Wiley book: Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation Felix QW (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Логотип МГО ОООИ ВОГ.png

This file was initially tagged by Drakosh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.deafmos.ru/o-nas/ Copyrighted logo without educational use PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No PD in Russia COM:TOO Russia --Drakosh (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagy Imre Emlékház (35).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Hungarikusz Firkász as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Kortárs szobor nem szabadban kiállítva, így ez engedélyköteles a szobrász részéről. Addig Delete Yann (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nem igazán értem, mit kell ezen megbeszélni. Nagy Imrét 1958-ban végezték ki, így nyilvánvaló, hogy a szobra is később készült. A politikai megítélése miatt is. 1958 óta sem telt el 70 év, így a szobor elkészítése óta sem telhetett el több, mint 70 év. A szobor -- láthatóan -- nem a szabadban van elhelyezve, így nem köztéri szobor és nem vonatkozik rá a FOP. Épületen belül elhelyezett kortárs szobrok fényképei engedélykötelesek. Szerintem ez nem olyasmi, ami vitatandó, mert a helyzet egyértelmű. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagy Imre Emlékház (34).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Hungarikusz Firkász as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Kortárs szobor nem szabadban kiállítva, így ez engedélyköteles a szobrász részéről. Addig Delete Yann (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nem igazán értem, mit kell ezen megbeszélni. Nagy Imrét 1958-ban végezték ki, így nyilvánvaló, hogy a szobra is később készült. A politikai megítélése miatt is. 1958 óta sem telt el 70 év, így a szobor elkészítése óta sem telhetett el több, mint 70 év. A szobor -- láthatóan -- nem a szabadban van elhelyezve, így nem köztéri szobor és nem vonatkozik rá a FOP. Épületen belül elhelyezett kortárs szobrok fényképei engedélykötelesek. Szerintem ez nem olyasmi, ami vitatandó, mert a helyzet egyértelmű . Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaguar Land Rover 2023.png

COM:TOO UK John123521 (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canan pictures tour 268.jpg

Palavangudi 186.173.153.60 12:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charl Schoeman, 2022.png

Person has not given permission for it to be posted here Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of the Minor Basilica Sto. Niño (Cebu).png

Said coat of arms is a "personal rendition/fanart" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/968392727242333/posts/1571349036946696/), not officially used by the basilica, using this is misleading. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral.png

Said coat of arms is a "personal rendition/fanart" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/968392727242333/posts/1565053087576291/), not officially used by the basilica, using this is misleading. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of the Basilica of Sto. Niño (Cebu).png

Said coat of arms is a "personal rendition/fanart" (https://www.reddit.com/r/heraldry/comments/en7kz2/the_attributed_arms_of_the_santo_ni%C3%B1o_de_cebu/), not officially used by the basilica, using this is misleading. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bieber cafe hh.jpg

1917 and "own work"... o no... Xocolatl (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just fix instead of lazy deletion nomination. --RAN (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tweeddale.svg

Duplicate of File:Peeblesshire-Scotland.svg. Tweeddale is the name of a district in the Borders region 1975-1996, and sometimes used as a synonym for Peeblesshire. The official name of the county (c. 1304-1975), which has an area approximately the same size as the Tweeddale district area, is Peeblesshire. This map shows historic counties of Scotland. A map of the Tweeddale district is available here: File:Scotland_locator_map_of_Tweeddale_district_1975-1996.svg Elianfoo (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ام زكي.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:معالي المستشار د. عبد العزيز دحّام عبد العزيز المسلط.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:وداد احمد بوشنين.png

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:شيخة المهيري.png

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:سفيره الجمال للشرق الأوسط وشمال إفريقيا لعام٢٠٢٢.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جمانة مصطفى.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ابتهال محسن الدايني.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:أ. سوسن عبدالعال.png

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:أ. حصه مبارك الجافلة.png

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Doyle (author).jpg

Blurry picture, superseded by File:Peter Doyle (author) 02.jpg, unlikely to be of any use Calistemon (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who took both: feel free to delete the earlier one. Both taken with a point-and-shoot that wasn't very good for low lighting, but was all I had at the time. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor quality, Blurry and unused image.--Javidd (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adding Subtitles on Video Using KineMaster Video Editor.webm

No Scope and the user is blocked in en.wiki and ta.wiki due to socks ~AntanO4task (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-Zero icon.png

Neither own work [4], nor seemingly under COM:TOO. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Alexey Yakovlev (talk · contribs)

Paintings by Russian artist Vladimir Weisberg (1924-1985). His works are still copyrighted in Russia and the US.

Günther Frager (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Letizia Giorgianni 2.jpg

license not present on the site 91.80.65.92 15:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Digitalworknow (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Sony 19th (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: an enormous, indiscriminate collection of unused, undescribed, and largely uncategorized or miscategorized nighttime photos of streets, buildings, parking lots, and building interiors in the Los Angeles region. A few of the photos are of posters or advertisements containing copyrighted images; most are just dark suburban streets.

Full disclosure: I haven't reviewed all of these images in detail; there's simply too many of them. But most of them are simply unremarkable, and they're all taken at night with a cell phone, so the image quality is fairly low, and there's just no educational use for most of these. Please let me know if there's anything that looks potentially usable in here.

List of all 1,884 images

Omphalographer (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we start mass deleting here we also would need to delete much more. Many of the files could be useful if identified and are also easily identifiable for people with local knowledge. Therefor

Keep in this request and make individual requests for the really unusable ones and the ones with copyright concerns. GPSLeo (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the vast majority of these photos aren't of anything in particular; even if we knew where they were taken, there just isn't anything meaningful in frame to identify. Picking five at random:

File:Inland Empire CA 20230801 225012695 MP.jpg is the interior of a parking garage;
File:Inland Empire CA 20230813 230431359.jpg is an unmarked commercial building, possibly the one at 3105 Sedona Ct, Ontario, CA (an utterly unremarkable low-rise office building);
File:Inland Empire CA 20230814 224949042.jpg is a weird angle of a wood paneled surface;
File:Inland Empire CA 20230826 004456275.jpg is a sidewalk curb cut near what looks like an empty field;
File:Inland Empire CA 20230826 015637049.jpg is a mostly empty street with no buildings near enough to see.

I'd love to be proven wrong but, as far as I can tell, there's absolutely nothing useful here. Omphalographer (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only agree with File:Inland Empire CA 20230814 224949042.jpg that it is not not usable. All other files are fine to illustrate the building or the street if identified especially if no photos of higher quality are available. GPSLeo (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as no consensus for bulk deletion. (Note: I agree that probably most have little to no usefulness, but no one seems to be inclinded to sort through them all. No prejudging renomination of individual or subsets.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sony 19th (talk · contribs)

There is no freedom of panorama in the US. The mural even has a copyright symbols, see File:Inland Empire CA 20230914 010745589.jpg.

Günther Frager (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justice Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain.jpg

One recent photo has been uploaded for Justice Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain. This old photo always comes to google search page whereas the new photo does not apprear. So , this old photo creates a confusion. Would you please delete this photo as soon as possible? Msaklainmorshed (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a validly licenced image, confusion at Google is not Commons' concern. Newly uploaded images take a while before they appear on Google, if the new one is more commonly used on Wikipedia it will likely become the dominant one on Google eventually. Belbury (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:D23 Expo 2013, Anaheim Convention Center.jpg

this artwork of Mickey is definitely copyrighted. Undelete 96 years after creation in 2109. SDudley (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:D23Expo2017Entrance.jpg

The Mickey art is definitely copyrighted. Undelete in 2113. SDudley (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kosovo uranium NATO bombing1999.png

Wrong country names 89.210.189.77 15:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not a valid deletion reason. "Wrong country names"? What is wrong with the designations? Can you explain that? --Ras67 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Use {{Fact disputed}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kosovo uranium NATO bombing1999.png

The map contains disputable/erroneous country names that may confuse the readership of Wikipedia. Specifically, in 1999, the country listed as "MACEDONIA" had the official name of "FYROM" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia). As the map is dated in 2010, it violates international naming laws (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute), and requires proper and prompt revisions.

Given the sensitivity of the matter, the fact that even the current official name of the country is different (i.e., "Republic of North Macedonia"; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia), and aiming to avoid misinforming (or even provoking) the general public and creating confusion with the Greek geographic and administrative unit of "Macedonia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece) ), I would suggest that the image is deleted or replaced with an accurate version as soon as possible.

CptJeliro (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001 Macedonian insurgency map.svg

The map contains disputable/erroneous country names that may confuse the readership of Wikipedia. Specifically, in 2001, the country listed as "MACEDONIA" had the official name of "FYROM" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia). As the map is recent, it violates international naming laws (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute), and requires proper and prompt revisions.

Given the sensitivity of the matter, the fact that even the current official name of the country is different (i.e., "Republic of North Macedonia"; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia), and aiming to avoid misinforming (or even provoking) the general public and creating confusion with the Greek geographic and administrative unit of "Macedonia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(Greece) ), I would suggest that the image is deleted or replaced with an accurate version as soon as possible. CptJeliro (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commons is not censored--Trade (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FYROM was never the official constitutional name of the state, it was just a designator used in some international contexts. There's no need to qualify it because Greek Macedonia is not listed on the map. Either way, neither is a criteria for deletion anyway. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sutherland 1861 map.png

Duplicate of a higher quality map: File:1861 SUTHERLANDSHIRE.jpg Elianfoo (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Deltapark Neeltje Jans

Photographs of an exhibit at Deltapark Neeltje Jans. Neither theme parks nor museums (whichever you want to qualify these as) are covered by Dutch FoP. --185.161.203.104 18:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Cultuurforum Aardenburg

Museum interiors are not covered by Belgium's FoP laws. Photos where the focus are the graphics/text/layout of the exhibit were tagged, photos focused on old museum pieces (44, 51, 56, among others) were not. --185.161.203.104 19:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Fussell.jpg

Maurice Grosser passed away in 1986, not out of copyright Nutshinou ^Talk! 19:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen von Woltersdorf-Schönemark (Schönblick).png

Wie alle Wappen der Woltersdorf-Gruppe handelt es sich hierbei um eine Erfindung eines Vereins. Out of scope GerritR (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bart Verhaeghe.jpg

The image contains a signature of Bart Verhaeghe's wife, while this was uploaded by a communication employee who claims it to be her work. Given that another image of his is also a copyright infringement, I suspect this one to be as well. Dajasj (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bart Verhaeghe.jpg

No permission from given author Ann De Kelver - stated is in Duch that this imag has been given to the uploader only Hoyanova (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoyanova. I was contacted by the photogapher herself to add this recent photo to the page of Bart Verhaeghe. I have a 100% authorization to publish this picture. DeVosJan (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeVosJan, could you follow the steps of nl:Wikipedia:Contactpunt/Toestemming voor gebruik afbeelding vragen to verify this? Important to note that you not only posted it on the page of Bart Verhaeghe, but also provided a license which means it can also be used outside Wikipedia. Dajasj (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Warhol Skulls (5987376644).jpg

Artwork by Andy Warhol (1928-1987) on display in Tate Modern gallery in London. Notice that although the UK has freedom of panorama, it doesn't include 2D artworks. The year of creation / publication is not given, so I'm not certain of the correct date of undeletion. Günther Frager (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From 1976 per [5]. Undelete in 2072 per COM:HIRTLE. --Rosenzweig τ 10:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colonel Stanišić 1942.jpg

Dubious Creative Commons license: originally taken from an external non-free website [6], then the source link removed and an OTRS tag added by a user, who isn’t an OTRS member. 188.123.231.24 20:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS was specified on the file page. See the page and discussion: [7]. --Poltavski (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does yesterday's discussion on the Russian Wikipedia have to do with the weird actions a few years ago on the Serbian one? --188.123.231.24 07:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read and it will become clear. --Poltavski (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - For your information: I asked the author of the photo publication Miloslav Samardzic about the legal status of the image. I will inform you about the result additionally. --Poltavski (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mr. Samardzic gave a permission in his response to my request on his Facebook page. You can read it at the link --Poltavski (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How old is your Mr. Samardzic to be able to make photos in 1942? Quick1984 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Read Samardzic's article, everything is written there clearly. --Poltavski (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Poltavski: First of all, please refrain from constantly sending me to go somewhere and read something: according to COM:EVID policy, it is you who must provide evidence of the possibility to upload images on Commons. And well, if one still read this text, it is all the more obvious that this Mr. Samardzic has absolutely no rights to determine the licensing status of these photographs, since he is neither their author nor their proper copyright holder. Quick1984 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I definitely won't communicate with you. --Poltavski (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this all the evidence you can give? Quick1984 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      
      Wouldn't this fall under public domain anyway? (see {{PD-Yugoslavia}}). Ђидо (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you suppose that the photo of year 1942 could have been published before 1941 or it's author has been died before 1941? As for the other PD templates we still need to clarify the date of first publication. Quick1984 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alessandra SUBLET.jpg

Derivative of a non-free photo. 188.123.231.24 20:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MG Galloz (talk · contribs)

The uploader has made their own logo for this book series. I assume this is misleading or at least out of scope, but I haven't found any guidance on what to do in these cases, if anything.

Sinigh (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hazer Çağla Çetinalp.png

Not own work Necatorina (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Çağla ve Umut.png

Not own work Necatorina (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:St. Fronleichnam (Aachen)

The architect of the Church was Rudolf Schwarz who died in 1961 and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The files depict an interior view and Germany has no FoP for interior views.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large box-shaped room without any substantively creative details and thus below the threshold of originality. This is a de minimis portion of a larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the windows and the play of light, the linear "chandelier" hanging from the ceiling, then the dark-bright contrast created from the black marble and white walls. There are no stained glass windows as it is often the case in churches. Also the chancel in the middle of the church is different than the traditional ones, with straight stairs leading to the chancel, than a spiraled one. The church is from 1928, at the time that was pretty revolutionary, it is seen as one of the first churches with modern architecture in Germany. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]