Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/06

5 August 2024

7 August 2024

Deletion requests on 6 August 2024

August 6

File:Foundations of Leninism English 10th Anniversary Edition.jpg

Accidental transfer, work is solely PD in Russia as lenin has died more than 70 years ago, not in the U.S. (I thought it was from 1924 not 1934) Wiiformii (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dương vật cương to.jpg

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we need ethnic variations to avoid selection bias. --RAN (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no different or better tan existing files Dronebogus (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fairly good, so I'd normally favor keeping it, but you may have a point. Which similar examples do you like better? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Voto ateo - atheist billboard.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Thi (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riga tv tower from water level.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Riga Radio and TV Tower. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:12, 6 August 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 Ssemmanda will (talk · contribs)

Author MugoyaMosesParliament Copyright holder POU

Butcher2021 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ssemmanda will 2 (talk · contribs)

Claimed as own work but all have other info in exif, mix of cameras etc

Gbawden (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GbawdenI would like to comment on the issue of mix of cameras. Most of the volunteers do not own cameras because these are expensive gadgets to own and even in some scenarios the camera lens are more expensive than the cameras themselves. So you believe that some volunteers hire from other photographers or borrow cameras from their Wikimedia Community User Groups when they are going for photo hunts or road trips.

And also for the photographers, they usually have multiple camera types for different purposes some might have Mirrorless cameras, DSLR cameras or even other people prefer using their smart phones to capture images. Even someone might choose to upgrade the camera or he or she wants to challenge himself or herself by switching cameras say from mirrorless to DSLR or even switching brands which is definitely someone's

But instead of him deleting those images, he or she chooses to upload them to Wikimedia Commons to be used by someone else put their in the world for the greater good.

What I am trying to is that the mix of cameras should not be the reason for deleting the above images because even if you ask him to prove that the images are his or hers, how is that person going to do it. It is like borrowing someone's smart phone and you take good images because that phone is better than yours and upload them to wikimedia commons using that same gadget because you fear to lose the meta data on those images. The phone owner will later delete those images if they are not important to him or her or even for storage purposes.

I suggest that the images should not be deleted. Thank you B722N (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is something called the Commons:Precautionary principle. A mix of cameras is generally an indication of photo theft. What would reasonably assure us that this is an exception? I would suggest to you, if User:Ssemmanda will were to give specific explanations for inconsistencies in the EXIFs of the different photos, that might work. Simply taking the hypothetical, possible but probably unlikely suggestions you've given as a reason to keep the photos doesn't seem like it overrides the precautionary principle. I notice the uploader was blocked for 1 month, so in view of the higher standards for undeletion, that's a good reason to wait till after September 7, 2024 to delete these images, thereby giving them a chance to make a statement here. I'm not hopeful, though, because I don't see any replies by them on their user talk page, and they don't seem to have commented at all in any thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ssemmanda will 3 (talk · contribs)

More photos claimed as own work, mix of cameras, Uploader has a history of copyvios

Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden The mix of camera info might be resulting from: rented or borrowed cameras as the cost of purchasing cameras is a bit high, the need to upgrade from one brand to another, testing out of cameras say that someone was using a DSLR and is wanting to a mirrorless camera or is testing out some new lens and s/he ends uploading those images on Wikimedia Commons.

And also to comment on the "Uploader has a history of copyvios", the Wikimedia journey especially that of Wikimedia Commons is of continuous learning and never ending and it is hard not to violate some rules and policies along the way for example; the copyright laws are different in different in many countries as in what is accepted in one country is not accepted in another country, fair use is not allowed on certain projects or in certain countries, there is even continuous revision of the copyright laws among other things. But I believe that each violation the user gives them a lesson especially when the reason or policy for nominating that image for deletion is stated or linked.

He has violated some rules yes but his history of copyvios should not be the reason for deletion of those images that do not violate the copyright laws because I strongly believe that people learn from their mistakes. Let only those images that violate the copyright be nominated for deletion and also before deletion let the user first prove if the original author or photographer gave this user to upload those images under a free license. for example, User:Ssemmanda will uploaded images that were taken by "Author MugoyaMosesParliament Copyright holder POU" but the question is how did he get them in the first place, maybe the should have been given some time to bring proof or consent from Mugoya Moses before the images are deleted. Maybe those images were donated by the original author himself and the user didn't know that he had to provide that proof. Because we need to know what POU stands for. Thank you B722N (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge I have with this user is that a number of his files have been to DR in the past including the POU issue and they make no effort to comment or save the photos. They just keep uploading files with no exif and its generally a theme - one day its clergy, another day soldiers. Very suspicious Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gbawden, basing on his User page, he is a member of the Luganda Wikipedia, I will reach out the Luganda team in Wikimedia Community User Group Uganda and they organize a refresher training to address the above concerns that you have mentioned so that we can prevent it from happening again. Thank you so much B722N (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mouse into Space title card.png

This file was initially tagged by Andrek02 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Definitely not a simple font. Yann (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info Copyright renewal registration RE0000441176 / 1989-10-20 --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Franco0905 (talk · contribs)

Dubious claim of own work. One found here in 2023 https://www.instagram.com/p/CxaHqFYq9ya/?hl=en and another https://www.instagram.com/p/CsJl6__qFsG/?hl=en

Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin der Fotograf von Ekaterina Schmidt (Mascha von Rascha) und habe die Bilder in ihrem Auftrag gepostet. Gerne können sie die Künstlerin fragen, sie hat jetzt auch ein Wikipedia Profil: Ekaterina Schmidt. Franco0905 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte schreib doch ein Mail an COM:VRT mit der Information, dass du der Fotograf und damit Rechteinhaber bist, dann ist die Sache geklärt. Eine Bewilligung der Künstlerin ist nicht zwingend erforderlich, da die Bilder offensichtlich mit ihrem Einverständnis gemacht wurden. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe eine Mail an: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org gesendet. Die Ticketnummer ist: Ticket#2024081310003431 2A01:599:41E:ED09:D0A9:4628:7B6B:445B 08:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jyoti Swarup Pande.jpg

The file is actually licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. 源義信 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iman Vellani 2023.png

no metadata tightly cropped not own work possibly copyvio Waqar💬 09:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GFDL (English).ogg/Warning 1

This page came up in the review at VP/T. File namespace has no subpages. The discussion I checked relate to File:GFDL (English).ogg, not File:GFDL (English).ogg/Warning 1. Any reason why this shouldn't be included directly elsewhere? I think @JopkeB: was correct to tag it for speedy deletion. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted, but before that happens the use of it as a template on File:GFDL (English).ogg will need to be replaced by something else Either this template should be substituted into the description or it should be copied into the template namespace. The internationalisation machinery at File:GFDL (English).ogg/Warning 1/en and File:GFDL (English).ogg/Warning 1/layout is part of this template and should be replaced or copied elsewhere at the same time. --bjh21 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical perspective, this could be moved to template namespace. However, I'm not convinced it is appropriate in template namespace — it is a one-off unique case for this single file, the spoken audio of the text of the GFDL, and it should not be generally available for use on other files. It can't be substituted into the file page itself, as that would break the autotranslate internationalization with the default base, and even if that were addressed, the en and layout subpages would still have to be located somewhere. We could embed the warning and keep the internationalization by rewriting the warning to use {{LangSwitch}}. But why go the effort? The parent file is already a one-off exception of the license policy for practical reasons, so keeping "warning 1" would be the easy solution to something that works fine as is. I lean

Keep. —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even from this location, it could be transcluded elsewhere.

BTW there are no translations available. So these fake subpages just create a lot of issues for nothing. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could fairly easily arrange that the template wouldn't work on any other file, whether it's here or in the template namespace. We could wrap its contents in {{#ifeq: {{FULLPAGENAME: File:GFDL (English).ogg}} | {{FULLPAGENAME}} | ... | }} for instance. But actually, I'm not sure that's appropriate. We might reasonably have other recordings of the GFDL, or a recording of version 1.3 (this is 1.2), and those would be under the same licence and require the same warning. --bjh21 (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that this warning is a very fair warning that explicitly lets you know that this is an ND-licensed file, of which needs to be here, isn't it obvious we need it? If not, use something like this:

{{Warning|1=The GFDL prevents derivative works of itself from being created ("Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed"). As such, creation of derivative works of this file may be prohibited. Please see the licensing section of this file for more detailed information.}}

The GFDL prevents derivative works of itself from being created ("Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed"). As such, creation of derivative works of this file may be prohibited. Please see the licensing section of this file for more detailed information.

This is that warning I was forced to make myself after the warning was deleted before it was restored. But if you are trying to delete the file itself, please keep it too per previous DRs as it needs to be here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, copy and paste the code of the nominated warning. I believe this should just be kept though. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is now a warning in the file telling you not to delete it. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the template* AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on the question asked initially? Enhancing999 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the template creator, I !vote

delete. I thought the i18n infrastructure would be a good idea, but I now think it's a better idea to use

{{Warning|1={{LangSwitch|en=The GFDL prevents derivative works of itself from being created ("Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed"). As such, creation of derivative works of this file may be prohibited. Please see the licensing section of this file for more detailed information.}}}}

(using LangSwitch) since it would be easier to find for translators if they want to translate. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I also like the idea of using "Everyone" instead of "[e]veryone" since idk what the purpose of that is lol (and "Everyone" is also more verbatim than "[e]veryone" if we're copying the GFDL's warning). But yeah, I like the idea of using {{Warning}} for this, but not that I mind either to be used. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Puta Images

unused maintenance gallery Enhancing999 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it is true that I created this gallery for maintenance, it costs us nothing to keep it and it may be useful to some of us. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems more like a gallery in for your user namespace. The title isn't really immediately clear for the general public. "Restored" meaning undeleted, "Images" meaning photos, "Puta" meaning Roger Puta. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enhancing999, what would you like to do with these in lieu of the gallery? I feel like there's no real harm in keeping the gallery, but I'm happy to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really any educational value in the fact that Jim undeleted them.

Gallery namespace is not for maintenance purposes. Move it to User:Jameslwoodward/Restored Puta Images.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I buy that. So why not do the move, rather than deleting the gallery? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tohoku Gakuin Rahauser Memorial Chapel 1932.jpg

Very poor quality image. It seems a screen shot. ブルーメンタール (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Battle of the Sea Gods" (c82c7944-155d-451f-67c2-4233bdbb18a4).jpg

Low res version of Category:Battle of the Sea Gods by Andrea Mantegna TheImaCow (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one does have something the other two images lack (the color calibration card), so I think it's vaguely worth keeping, even though it is essentially black and white. The other two are also tight crops that lose a bit of the edges. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the value of this card, which purpose does it have? TheImaCow (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow: I'm not an expert, so this is a bit hand-wavy, but I believe it helps someone who is color-grading the image tell what the "true" colors should be, allowing them to correct for any slight changes caused by the camera or by lighting that isn't perfectly white. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur with BMacZero. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Triangle Hill Grenade Throwers.jpg

Uploader lists no source and no author Excel23 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Triangle Hill Chinese Infantrymen.jpg

Uploader put unknown source and unknown author Excel23 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that affect copyright though, under Chinese law for 70+ year images? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A date would probably be relevant. I have added 1952 since that's when the battle took place. Hohum (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:United Doctors Medical Center

The hospital building was built in 1975. As there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, these commercially-licensed images infringe the building author's copyright. Assuming no-FoP prevails even up to the end of the w:en:19th Congress of the Philippines, these images can only restored on January 1, 2026 (1975+50+1), assuming the architect or designer is unknown.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятник Андрею Шептицькому у Львові.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suleyman Vazirov.jpg

to be in PD the image needs to be published >70 years ago if anonymous. The source provided shows 1958, so, free from 2028 rubin16 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubin16 hello. The file is free in Azerbaijan. Please read the template {{PD-AZ}}: Works of authors who died in 1970 or earlier, or anonymous works published 1970 or earlier, are public domain in Azerbaijan. Toghrul R (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you apply this part, then, in my opinion, the image won't be acceptable on Commons as it won't be free in the US (it needs to be free both in the country of first publication and in the US) - COM:URAA. Let's hear opinions of others rubin16 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we have a precedent where US copyright laws are "overturned" by local copyright laws. See Template:Not-free-US-FOP. It says: "This work might not be available under a free license in the United States because it is based on an artwork or sculpture that may be protected by copyright under U.S. law. [...] In U.S. law, there is no freedom of panorama for artwork or sculptures, and under the choice-of-law principle lex loci protectionis, U.S. courts might apply U.S. freedom of panorama standards to this work [...]. However, in practice, it is unsettled whether and how this approach would be applied in real-world [...]. The current policy on Commons is to accept photos of artwork and sculptures that are covered by freedom of panorama in their source country." And there's also Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. Other possibilities: Template:Unclear-PD-US-old-70, Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure (though, Azerbaijan is not EU). Nakonana (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bir kadın voleybol oynuyor.jpg

i don't think that it is an original piece of work https://x.com/voleybolplus/status/1263420326983208961 Elenktra (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resona Bank logo.svg

For Abuse Tahjar a (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason for deletion, in use on 5 projects. --Achim55 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2 Chitragupta mandir, Khajuraho.jpg

This seems to be misattributed Enhancing999 (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems" is vague. Please identify which temple it is and why. This is a derivative work of a photo taken by a trusted photographer whose photos are in many commons folders. Also, look into the details of all the other photos of this temple I have loaded, with GPS coord. Plus those uploaded by other editors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is the attribution to yourself as author.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch The file has invalid license. Since the original is under CC BY SA 2.0, the DW can't be released into CC0. -- DaxServer (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description always mentioned that it is a derivative work, plus provided link to the original. The "authorship" referred to the changes made to the original in the derivative work. To address your comments, I revised some sections. Feel free to fix any other attributions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect

|author= [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]]; photo by {{Creator:Dennis G. Jarvis}}

unless you got some special license from the photographer directly.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AGIOS-SPIRIDONAS.jpg

Not in use. New better version has been uploaded [[1]] Petro Stelte (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harris Walz 2024 Campaign Logo SVG.svg

Duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harris_Walz_2024_presidential_campaign_logo.svg Qbox673 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge instead. Aside from different size, this filename should become a redirect for that another file, which is File:Harris_Walz_2024_presidential_campaign_logo.svg. Yayan550 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is just example of how two images are similar, apart from different file size. It should be merged into single file already, and this file name should be redirect to File:Harris_Walz_2024_presidential_campaign_logo.svg. 2404:8000:1037:469:68FD:E77E:570C:B78D 23:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ToyQube (talk · contribs)

Per COM:TOYS.

0x0a (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the uploader's username indicates that these files were uploaded by the ToyQube company that created these toys, meaning that they own the copyrights and are able to release these photos under a CC license. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the company owns the full copyright to Astro Boy. For the other characters, they need to go through VRT to give permission, because we don't know who runs the account. 0x0a (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NawalElMoutawakel1984.png

"This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years." Doubtful for an Associated Press photo. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I couldn't find the picture on the AP Newsroom;

2. The original wirephoto doesn't seem to have a valid copyright notice;

3. A couple queries (1, 2, 3) on the Copyright Office's registry yields no results.

I'm curious on what fuels your doubts? NAADAAN (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing details, especially a source that includes more details about the pictures. I must admit that I'm not an expert in copyright, I just find it strange that a 1984 image by a professional photographer would fall in the public domain. I'll let more experienced voice their opinion on the matter. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JACQUES CARTIER ARTISTE.jpg

copyright situation is unclear no evidence who is the copyright holder GPSLeo (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Muhammad Asad Ali

Given the span in time for these files and the approximate age of the uploader (see File:Muhammad Asad Ali.JPG), it is highly unlikely that they took all these pictures. None of them have Exif either, so it is likely that these were taken from random websites. COM:LL Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-Brazil-Photo ordinary photos were not eligible for copyright in Brazil till 1998. --RAN (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a template to put on the picture's piages ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vereadora Teresa Bergher, Rio de Janeiro.jpg

A imagem aparenta ser um recorte de uma entrevista com a vereadora Paladinum2 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs VRT. I noticed that this same user is uploading a series of images to the articles here without the proper licenses that allow their reproduction on the site. I warned him in his discussion page about the possibility of all the photos being deleted, and we even try to be nice and give a little touch so as not to discourage people here from contributing to Wikipedia and the project itself. But would it be too much trouble to at least research the source of each photo to see if they have a free license or not? It's a shame, unfortunately, but rules are rules. And this photo here doesn't look like it has a free license. The user who uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons didn't even bother to list where the photo or frame came from. If it came from a YouTube video with a CC license, it would be possible for it to remain; otherwise, it wouldn't. Most likely, he took a screenshot of an old interview with the councillor, and he didn't list the source or the origin of it.

Eu percebi que esse mesmo usuário está enviando uma série de imagens para os artigos daqui sem as devidas licenças que permitem a reprodução no site. Eu o avisei em sua página de discussão sobre a possibilidade de todas as fotos serem apagadas, e a gente até tenta ser legal e dar um toque numa boa pra não desestimular o pessoal daqui de contribuir com a Wikipédia e o projeto em si. Mas será que custa muito ao menos pesquisar a fonte de cada foto pra ver se elas tem licença livre ou não? É uma pena, infelizmente, mas regras são regras. E essa foto aqui não tem cara de ter licença livre. O usuário que fez o upload do arquivo no Wikimedia Commons sequer fez questão de listar de onde a foto ou o frame veio, se veio de um vídeo do Youtube com a licença CC seria possível a sua permanência; caso contrário, não. Muito provavelmente ele tirou print do vídeo de uma entrevista antiga da vereadora, sem especificar de onde veio. Sailoratlantis (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xe ô tô của HT. Thích Quảng Đức ở chùa Thiên Mụ, tháng 3 năm 2021 (3).jpg

Poor and distracting angle, have a bunch of others in Category:Austin A95 Westminster of Thich Quang Duc with better perspective from same time. There is nothing uniquely represented in this image. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise:

File:Xe ô tô của HT. Thích Quảng Đức ở chùa Thiên Mụ, tháng 3 năm 2021 (2).jpg

by same uploader. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UA 47th bde M-55S 01.jpg

No explicit license is mentioned on this particular page. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UA 47th bde M-55S 02.jpg

No explicit license is mentioned on this particular page. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson (14066101623).jpg

This is redundant with the photo “ File:Monrovia Porter.jpg” that was previously uploaded. FischerFotos (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeans Vendor (14531839572).jpg

This is a duplicate of the photo “ File:Monrovia Jeans Vendor.jpg” that was previously uploaded. FischerFotos (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Banknotes by Schubert, Hanns

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Hanns Schubert, who died in 1967. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2038.

Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by BaseerAhmed Tahir (talk · contribs)

Source says: This is to clarify that all contents and images of this website and all of our other websites listed at www.minhaj.org/eid/1801/ can be used with reference of this website on Wikipedia under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

To be hosted on Commons, the files must be able to be used freely, not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere for any purpose. It doesn't seem as though these files are able to be used in such a way for whatever reason, only on Wikipedia.

Jonteemil (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perseam Amuntai.jpg

Salah sumber Hartigan15 (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kesalahan sumber dan gak punya lisensi terhadap foto Hartigan15 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is still COM:INUSE at id:Perseam Amuntai. --Rosenzweig τ 08:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sentiero di Ho Chi Minh-Piano Cao Van Vien - 1965.png

Perché intendo sostituirlo con altro più preciso (sentiero di Ho Chi Minh ricopiato da Atlante Storico Istituto Geografico De Agostini - Novara - 1972, pagina 80). Il nuovo file avrà linee più gradevoli alla vista (rispettando le indicazioni del Vs incaricato Janik98). Il piano del Generale Cao Van Vien, indicato in rosso, è citato a pagina 73 del libro scritto dal Colonnello Harry G. Summers, Jr. dal titolo "On Strategy. The Vietnam War In Context" ed è pure citato nel file "Sir Robert Thompson and the U.S. defeat in Vietnam" (PDF), su larouchepub.com. Tali due fonti sono indicate nelle note alla voce Wikipedia "Sentiero di Ho Chi Minh". 5.179.167.222 22:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hurricane-Tropical Storm Harvey in Houston - August 26 2017 (36007365394).jpg

Unusable blurry image of the ground, not in scope Cutlass ^Ciera 22:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]