Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/29

28 October 2023

30 October 2023

Deletion requests on 29 October 2023

October 29[edit]

File:Zloganje - Cerkev Marijinega obiskanja.jpg[edit]

low quality duplicate Andrejj (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho[edit]

Numerous uploads from this user triggered red flags with me.

Screengrabs from Internet Archive of pro wrestling magazines. All of these were uploaded under claim of {{PD-US-1978-89}}, which hinges on the lack of a copyright notice. As the entire publication can be found at the given source, it was easy to determine that all bear proper copyright notices.

Also screengrabs from Internet Archive of pro wrestling magazines with a claim of {{PD-US-1978-89}}. None of the source publications bear proper copyright notices. Given that the uploader has demonstrated from the previous list that they lack understanding of what {{PD-US-1978-89}} entails, and given that these images are sourced from multiple different publications by multiple different publishers, I believe that these were uploaded with a blanket PD claim without forethought and that we need verification of whether or not the copyrights in question were registered.

File:Lutteroth.gif

Cross-wiki upload of a low-res image with no EXIF. The rationale explaining its PD status is questionable even as presented. However, the claimed date of circa 1920 makes it even more dubious. Lutteroth was born in 1897 and this photo clearly does not depict someone in their early 20s.

File:Ron Simmons FSU1981.jpg

I'm not as sure about this one, but am listing it as "better safe than sorry". Author Mark Foley has 2,000+ photos on the Florida Memory website. However, this one contains mention of the Associated Press in the file description, leading me to believe that it was previously published and therefore its copyright status is not as clear as his other photos contained on the site.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:遠友夜学校の木造校舎.png[edit]

Wrong licensing. This image was cut from a book published in 1981 in Japan. The uploader claims that the subject is so old and has no copyright. If the right remains, it is copyright violation. If no copyright remains, licensing (cc-by-sa-4.0) is inappropriate. Either way, deletion is required. 禁樹なずな (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

お任せいたします。遠藤進之助 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by CasuarioAlmeriense (talk · contribs)[edit]

Missing evidence for the “free use” claim.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Blick in die Rathausstrasse in Weinfelden (2023).jpg[edit]

Hauptsächlich Strassenbelag zu sehen. Wikiimx (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hauptsächlich Strassenbelag zu sehen. Zur löschung nominiert. Wikiimx (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Löschen|1='':Hauptsächlich Strassenbelag zu sehen'' --[[User:Wikiimx|Wikiimx]] ([[User talk:Wikiimx|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)}}

Obviously usable, but uploaded earlier this month, so you may well be given a courtesy deletion. Do you have any photos showing the same buildings that are more to your liking? Any you've uploaded and could link? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sabine Lackner.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, die Freigabe steht unter Beschreibung -> Genehmigung und beim Hochladen wurde die Lizenzabfrage nicht eingeblendet ...--Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The terms stated in the permission section (Alle vom THW zur Verfügung gestellten Bilder sind honorarfrei und dürfen unter Angabe der Quelle "THW" für die Berichterstattung über das THW und das Thema Bevölkerungsschutz verwendet werden. Alle Rechte am Bild liegen beim THW. Anders gekennzeichnete Bilder fallen nicht unter diese Regelung.) do not meet COM:L because they restrict the purposes for which someone may use the image. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ACH Jr.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as no permission (No permission since)
I have converted this to a full deletion request myself. Unless the "Family of Alfred Carl Haussmann, Jr." is the photographer or has acquired the copyright of this picture by act of law, it is not possible for them to give permission for use here. COM:PCP applies and this has all the hallmarks of a professional photo shoot, with a professional background. Correct permissions from the copyright owner, not any current owner of a physical picture, must be lodged with COM:VRT for this to remain here. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Schéma structural de Paris et ses environs.png[edit]

licence incorrecte, cf https://theconversation.com/fr/republishing-guidelines WikipSQ (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Auteursfoto Anne-Lot Hoek.png[edit]

no permission from photopgrapher and copyright is with the publisher also - see description - Auteursfoto Anne-Lot Hoek, uitgeverij De Bezige Bij. De strijd om Bali." Hoyanova (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the picture of my wife that we also use on her website for promotional services. The publisher De Bezige Bij, has paid for the pictures to the creator (Keke Keukelaar). We are allowed to use it. Ewout12345 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either the photographer or publishing company that holds the rights then has to comply with the regulations here - unless this is done this unfortunately is not useable on ~~wikipedia~~ commons/wikimedia projects. Hoyanova (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not talk about Wikipedia here and confuse the issue. This is Commons, and the necessary and important thing would be for the copyright-holder to contact COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusion restored. Hoyanova (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sam Fröjdö.jpg[edit]

Tekijänoikeusrikkomus, tallentaja ja kuvaaja eri; copyright violation, the uploader is not the phograhper. --Abc10 (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:國民法官新制實施紀念郵票.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted stamp by Chunghwa Post. Solomon203 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Stadtzentrum Weinfelden.jpg[edit]

Ich möchte das folgende Bilder aus Wikimedia Commons gelöscht werden. Begründung: Dies sind meine eigenenen Bilder und sind nicht schön und haben keinerlei Bezug auf Weinfelde 2A02:1205:5073:FEA0:9D0E:62DE:13AB:D24A 10:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But who are you? If you are uploader Lukas 91, then log-in and confirm. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: in scope, and doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion (no proof even that requester is uploader!). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Stadtzentrum Weinfelden.jpg[edit]

Schlechte Qualität auch nicht zeigenswert 2A02:1210:8CDB:E100:856D:A01F:18A7:BC87 08:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schlechte Qualität auch nicht zeigenswert --2A02:1210:8CDB:E100:856D:A01F:18A7:BC87 08:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Vandalism by known LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stadtzentrum Weinfelden.jpg[edit]

Keine schöne Darstellung Wikiimx (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:{{Löschen|1=''Nicht ausgetrieben'' --[[User:Wikiimx|Wikiimx]] ([[User talk:Wikiimx|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 11:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)}} [[User:Wikiimx|Wikiimx]] ([[User talk:Wikiimx|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 11:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) {{Löschen|1=''Nicht ausgetrieben'' --[[User:Wikiimx|Wikiimx]] ([[User talk:Wikiimx|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 11:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)}}

Keep Usable, not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kim Garam at Le Sserafim signing event in 2022.jpg[edit]

Non copyright Jjpachano (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Deepali (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Vikas Khanna - 1.jpg[edit]

I don't want my personal work to be used by others even with permission. Doctor Deepali (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy keep COM:INUSE and no valid reason for deletion. Creative Commons licences are non-revokable. The uploader should have though about it 7 years ago. Günther Frager (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: per comment. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Arabic features of Shakespeare.jpg[edit]

unused, out of scope per COM:SCOPE (nothing educational other than raw text) Adsci8 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sfmomadavantirothko.jpg[edit]

The author of the painting in the MOMA SF Mark Rothko died in 1970. USA has a standard of life plus 70 years. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. The painting is exhibited in the USA where FOP exists for buildings but COM:FOP US explicitly excludes paintings from FOP. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tanya Savicheva Diary1.jpg[edit]

Pointless upscale of File:Tanya Savicheva Diary.jpg. Leonel Sohns 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tanya Savicheva 1.jpg[edit]

Pointless upscale of File:Tanya Savicheva.jpg. Leonel Sohns 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant derivatives of Geograph images[edit]

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.

The following files are all redundant because they're not materially different from the originals from which they're derived, and which are also on Commons.

In the table below, the files in the right column are the ones in the list above. The files in the left column are all unmodified images from Geograph Britain and Ireland.^[a] The files in the right column are almost identical, save for one or more of the following:

Insignificant cropping. Most of the files have a tiny amount shaved off one of more sides, but not enough to make the derivative any more or less useful than the original.
Scaling up or down. In fact most images seem to have been scaled to 1024 px and then scaled up from there, so ones with high-resolution originals have ended up fuzzy.
Addition of a thin grey or white stripe along one or more edges. As with the cropping, this doesn't seem to have any aesthetic justification.
Conversion to a different format. All the originals are in JPEG format, but some derivatives are TIFF or PNG.
Stripping of Exif data. Most of the JPEG derivatives have the same minimal Exif data indicating that they were converted from PNG.

In all cases, the result is an image that is very similar to, but slightly less useful than the original. The changes are, however, enough that I can't tag the derivatives with {{Duplicate}}. I have not included any file that has been significantly cropped or where the content of the image has been changed by level adjustments or retouching.

↑ In one case, Commons actually got the file from Flickr, but it's identical to the one on Geograph.

No! In most cases, what User:Bjh21 calls "the original" has much a lower resolution than the origInal in the Geograph server. Therefore, in most cases, the screenshots have a better resolution and are more similar to the original, than versions of reduced quality, offered automatic download. The screenshots fit Geograph's CC-by-SA 2.0 as well. Wherever the screenshot has a better resolution then the automatically offered version, it mustn't be deleted.--Ulamm (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) + --Ulamm (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos offered for automatic download, most of them of artificially reduced resolutions	Screenshots of the original files, mostly of better resolutions	Deletion template withdrawn (time)
File:St Helens Church, Tarporley - geograph.org.uk - 205675.jpg	File:Tarporley St Helen 205675.jpg
File:Spondon, St Werburgh's Church - geograph.org.uk - 3979236.jpg	File:Spondon, St Werburgh's Church north side GeoUK.jpg
File:St Werburgh's Church, Warburton - geograph.org.uk - 2370882.jpg	File:Warburton St Werburgh from south-west GeoUK2370882.jpg
File:Interior of St Bartholomew Church, Chipping - geograph.org.uk - 337978.jpg	File:Chipping Bartholomew eastward GeoUK 337978.jpg
File:St.Andrew's nave - geograph.org.uk - 4033423.jpg	File:Ashby Puerorum Lincs St Andrew eastward GeoUK4033423.jpg
File:St.Andrew's nave - geograph.org.uk - 4033427.jpg	File:Ashby Puerorum Lincs St Andrew westward GeoUK4033427.jpg
File:St Andrew's Church Bainton - geograph.org.uk - 3954908.jpg	File:Bainton St Andrews from NW 3954908.jpg
File:St James', Didsbury - geograph.org.uk - 1331950.jpg	File:Didsbury St James from ENE GeoUK 1331950.jpg
File:St Andrew's Church - geograph.org.uk - 3680084.jpg	File:Headington St Andrew south face GeoUK 3680084.jpg
File:Path to the porch - geograph.org.uk - 2437205.jpg	File:Headington St Andrew south face GeoUK 2437205.jpg
File:All Saints, East Lockinge - geograph.org.uk - 1543462.jpg	File:East Lockinge All Saints from W GeoUK 1543462.jpg
File:Holne Church - geograph.org.uk - 3913034.jpg	File:Holne St Mary from SSW GeoUK 3913034.jpg
File:North side of the Holy Trinity - geograph.org.uk - 2671790.jpg	File:West Hendred Holy Trinity north side GeoUK 2671790.jpg
File:To the back of the Nave - geograph.org.uk - 5016118.jpg	File:Clifton Hampden St Michael &AA westward GeoUK 5016118.jpg
File:St.Denis' church - geograph.org.uk - 4812185.jpg	File:Silk Willoughby St Denys from SE GeoUK 4812185.jpg
File:Winston, Co. Durham, St Andrew's Church - geograph.org.uk - 223753.jpg	File:Winston (Durham) St Andrew from WSW GeoUK 223753.jpg
File:St Peter, Steeple Aston, Oxon - Interior - geograph.org.uk - 1609701.jpg	File:Steeple Aston St Peter &P arcade aisle to nave GeoUK 1609701.jpg
File:St. Mary, Ideford. Interior looking east - geograph.org.uk - 4824513.jpg	File:Ideford St Mary eastward GeoUK 4824513.jpg
File:The nave and north aisle, Ideford church - geograph.org.uk - 3855313.jpg	File:Ideford St Mary arcade GeoUK 3855313.jpg
File:St Augustine's church, Heanton Punchardon - geograph.org.uk - 3221284.jpg	File:Heanton Punchardon St Augustine tower+aisle from NW GeoUK 3221284.tif
File:Churchyard, Hatherleigh.jpg	File:Hatherleigh churchyard GeoUK 535795.jpg
File:The screen in Kenton church - geograph.org.uk - 2814934.jpg	File:Kenton All Saints rood screen GeoUK 2814934.jpg
File:St Andrews Church, Alphington Road, Exeter - geograph.org.uk - 58320.jpg	File:Exeter St Andrew Alphington Rd. GeoUK 58320.jpg
File:Dunchideock, St Michael and All Angels - geograph.org.uk - 991703.jpg	File:Dunchideok St Michael south aisle GeoUK 991703.jpg
File:St Laurence's Church, Rowington - geograph.org.uk - 3396666.jpg	File:Rowington St Laurence from WSW GeoUK 3396666.jpg
File:St Nicholas church, Willoughby - geograph.org.uk - 3767447.jpg	File:Willoughby St Nicholas fr SE GeoUK 3767447.jpg
File:Interior of St Peter's Church, Wellesbourne - geograph.org.uk - 4793913.jpg	File:Wellesbourne St Peter eastward GeoUK 4793913.jpg
File:Coleshill, St.Peter and St. Paul's church - geograph.org.uk - 4934611.jpg	File:Coleshill St Peter & Paul near from S GeoUK 4934611.jpg
File:Handsworth, St Mary, east end-6358285.jpg	File:Handsworth St Mary eastward GeoUK 6358285.jpg
File:St. Peter's church, Pedmore - geograph.org.uk - 1770770.jpg	File:Pedmore St Peter north face GeoUK 1770770.png
File:All Saints, Loughton - Interior - geograph.org.uk - 5119138.jpg	File:Loughton All Saints SE-ward GeoUK 5119138.jpg
File:St. Mary the Virgin, Great Brickhill, aisle - geograph.org.uk - 2600020.jpg	File:Great Brickhill St Mary Vi N aisle inside beside the tower GeoUK 2600020.jpg
File:St Mary's Church, Great Brickhill - geograph.org.uk - 5306981.jpg	File:Great Brickhill St Mary fr SE GeoUK 5306981.jpg
File:All Saints, Milton Keynes village - East end - geograph.org.uk - 5114079.jpg	File:Milton Keynes Village All Saints nave eastward GeoUK 5114079.jpg
File:All Saints, Milton Keynes village - Chancel - geograph.org.uk - 5114091.jpg	File:Milton Keynes Village All Saints eastward GeoUK 5114091.jpg
File:South Aisle and Chapel, All Saints Church at Marsworth - geograph.org.uk - 1516677.jpg	File:Marsworth All Saints south aisle & chapel GeoUK 1516677.jpg
File:Interior of All Saints Church, Bow Brickhill - geograph.org.uk - 1812176.jpg	File:Bow Brickhill All Saints eastward GeoUK 1812176.jpg
File:St Pancras church, Widecombe-in-the-Moor - geograph.org.uk - 2541663.jpg	File:Widecombe itM St Pancras fr SE GeoUK 2541663.jpg
File:War Memorial and All Saints Church, Thurlestone - geograph.org.uk - 3392293.jpg	File:Thurlestone All Saints fr SSE + war-mem. GeoUK 3392293.jpg
File:Church Of St Mary And St Michael, Doddington, In Late Winter - geograph.org.uk - 5288347.jpg	File:Doddington (Northum.) St Mary+Michael fr SW GeoUK 5288347.jpg
~~File:Interior of St Peter's Church, Wellesbourne - geograph.org.uk - 4793913.jpg~~	~~File:Wellesbourne St Peter eastward GeoUK 4793913.jpg~~
File:St James the Great, Slapton, Devon - East end - geograph.org.uk - 1738219.jpg	File:Slapton St James east end GeoUK 1738219.jpg
File:Parish Church of St Mary, Rewe (geograph 3216979).jpg	File:Rewe Mary the Virgin tower fr NW GeoUK 3216979.jpg
File:Rackenford All Saints eastward GeoUK 5753380.jpg	File:Rackenford All Saints eastward GeoUK 5753380.png
File:Church of St John the Baptist, Plymtree - geograph.org.uk - 5324542.jpg	File:Plymtree St John Ba eastward GeoUK 5324542.jpg
File:The church of St Petrock at Newton St Petrock - geograph.org.uk - 3702354.jpg	File:Newton St Petrock church fr S GeoUK 3702354.jpg
File:St Gregory the Great's church, Dawlish - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4489159.jpg	File:Dawlish St Gregory chancel + south chapel GeoUK 4489159.tif
File:St Gregory the Great's church, Dawlish - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4489159.jpg	File:Dawlish St Gregory chancel + south chapel GeoUK 4489159.jpg
File:St Michael's Church, Cotleigh - geograph.org.uk - 5404079.jpg	File:Cotleigh St Michael from S GeoUK 5404079.jpg
File:Crooked pillar in St Michael's Church Cotleigh - geograph.org.uk - 4204124.jpg	File:Cotleigh St Michael arcade GeoUK 4204124.jpg
File:Interior, Church of St Nicholas, Combe Raleigh - geograph.org.uk - 5321342.jpg	File:Combe Raleigh St Nicholas eastward GeoUK 5321342.jpg
File:St Martin and St Mary, Chudleigh, Devon - geograph.org.uk - 1729255.jpg	File:Chudleigh St Martin & St Mary south face GeoUK 1729255.jpg
File:Church of St Sylvester - geograph.org.uk - 3900071.jpg	File:Chivelstone St Sylvester from ESE GeoUK 3900071.jpg
File:Chittlehampton, St. Hieritha's church, The nave - geograph.org.uk - 4950869.jpg	File:Chittehampton St Hieritha eastward 4950869.jpg
File:St Andrew's church, Stratton (interior) - geograph.org.uk - 3514134.jpg	File:Stratton St Andrew look NE GeoUK 3514134.jpg
File:All Saints' church, Malborough - geograph.org.uk - 1076721.jpg	File:Malborough All Saints from S GeoUK 1076721.jpg
File:Linch church - geograph.org.uk - 3067892.jpg	File:Linch St Luke from SE GeoUK 3067892.jpg
File:St Michaels Church - geograph.org.uk - 1900974.jpg	File:Brierley Hill St Michael GeoUK 1900974.jpg
File:St Bartholomew's Church, Longbenton - geograph.org.uk - 3641043.jpg	File:Longbenton St Bartholomew from S GeoUK 3641043.jpg
File:Horfield Parish Church Bristol, viewed from the NE - geograph.org.uk - 3367337.jpg	File:Horfield Holy Trininty w Edmund from NE GeoUK 3367337.jpg
File:Holy Trinity nave - geograph.org.uk - 3959057.jpg	File:Caister-on-Sea Holy Trinity eastward geoUK 3959057.jpg
File:Chalfont St Peter Parish Church, mid August 2016 - geograph.org.uk - 5072543.jpg	File:Chalford St Peter south face GeoUK 5072543.jpg
File:Pirbright Scarecrow Festival 2013 - geograph.org.uk - 3512754.jpg	File:Pirbright St Michael chancel GeoUK 3512754.jpg
File:Hughenden - St Michael ^ All Angels - Chancel - geograph.org.uk - 4312358.jpg	File:Hughenden St Michael &AA chancel GeoUK 4312358.jpg
File:The Church of St. Thomas, Stanhope - geograph.org.uk - 2559330.jpg	File:Stanhope St Thomas roofs from NE GeoUK 2559330.jpg
File:The Church of St Wilfrid, Chapel Street - geograph.org.uk - 4313470.jpg	File:Preston St Wilfrid facade GeoUK 4313470.jpg
File:St Michael ^ All Angel's church, Great Badminton - geograph.org.uk - 3938965.jpg	File:Badminton St Michael &AA from SW GeoUK 3938965.jpg
~~File:Westley Waterless St Mary from NW GeoUK 6021180.jpg~~	~~File:WestleyWaterless St Mary from NW GeoUK 6021180.png~~
File:St Michael ^ All Angel's church, Great Badminton (interior 1) - geograph.org.uk - 3938954.jpg	File:Badminton St Michael &AA eastward GeoUK 3938954.jpg
File:Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Harlton - East end - geograph.org.uk - 3149065.jpg	File:Harlton Assumption Mary eastward GeoUK 3149065.jpg
File:All Saints, Rosendale Road - South aisle - geograph.org.uk - 2265897.jpg	File:Dulwich, Soutwark, All Saints interior GeoUK 2265897.jpg
File:The church of St. John-at-Hampstead - geograph.org.uk - 4638064.jpg	File:Hampstead St John tower from S GeoUK 4638064.jpg
File:St Anne, Kew Green, Kew - East end - geograph.org.uk - 3535225.jpg	File:Kew Green St Anne eastward GeoUK 3535225.jpg
File:Nave - St Aidan's Church - geograph.org.uk - 1885294.jpg	File:Skelmanthorpe St Aidan eastward GeoUK 1885294.jpg
File:Alcester Nic inside 4054478 J.Thacker.jpg	File:Alcester Nicholas eastward GeoUK 4054478.jpg
File:Chancel ^ Arch - geograph.org.uk - 4854686.jpg	File:West Hendred Holy Trinity chancel1 GeoUK 4854686.jpg
File:Across to the South Aisle of Holy Trinity Church, West Hendred - geograph.org.uk - 4856620.jpg	File:West Hendred Holy Trinity NW-ward GeoUK 4856620.jpg
File:Nave to the Back of Holy Trinity Church, West Hendred - geograph.org.uk - 4856465.jpg	File:West Hendred Holy Trinity westward GeoUK 4856465.jpg
File:Font in the Aisle of St Lawrence' Church, Toot Baldon - geograph.org.uk - 5262133.jpg	File:Toot Baldon St Lawrence westward GeoUK 5262133.jpg
File:North chapel of St. Peter's, Stoke Lyne, Oxon - geograph.org.uk - 1623745.jpg	File:Stoke Lyne St Peter north aisle GeoUK 1623745.jpg
File:Font in the Nave of St Andrew's Church, South Stoke, Oxfordshire - geograph.org.uk - 4892919.jpg	File:South Stoke St Andrew eastward GeoUK 4892919.jpg
File:Chandelier in the chancel at St Peter and St Paul, Steeple Aston - geograph.org.uk - 1461295.jpg	File:Steeple Aston chancel chandelier GeoUK 1461295.jpg
File:Yarnton, St. Bartholomew's Church, The interior from the south door - geograph.org.uk - 5200591.jpg	File:Yarnton St Bartholomew aisle & nave eastward GeoUK 5200591.jpg
File:Yarnton, St. Bartholomew's Church, The nave with its unusual chancel arch and c15th painting - geograph.org.uk - 5196508.jpg	File:Yarnton St Bartholomew nave & aisle eastward GeoUK 5196508.jpg
File:All Saints, North Moreton - geograph.org.uk - 2059983.jpg	File:North Moreton from SE GeoUK 2059983.jpg
File:St Nicholas, Idbury, Oxon - North aracde - geograph.org.uk - 1609226.jpg	File:Idbury St Nicholas arcade GeoUK 1609226.jpg
File:The Nave in St Michael & All Angels, Clifton Hampden - geograph.org.uk - 5014849.jpg	File:Clifton Hampden St Michael &AA eastward GeoUK 5014849.jpg
File:St Michael, Steventon, south aisle - geograph.org.uk - 5393720.jpg	File:Steventon St Michael aisle GeoUK 5393720.jpg
File:Radley, St. James the Great Church, The nave with its rare timber arcade - geograph.org.uk - 5192676.jpg	File:Radley St James eastward GeoUK 5192676.jpg
File:All Saints, North Moreton - East end - geograph.org.uk - 2059957.jpg	File:North Moreton All Saints eastward GeoUK 2059957.jpg
File:Interior of Nether Worton church - geograph.org.uk - 5063841.jpg	File:Nether Worton St James eastward GeoUK 5063841.jpg
File:Inside St. Margaret, Lewknor (G) - geograph.org.uk - 4108030.jpg	File:Lewknor St Margaret westward GeoUK 4108030.jpg
File:Langford, St. Matthew's Church, c17th polygonal wooden pulpit on stone stem 1 - geograph.org.uk - 5441781.jpg	File:Langford St Matthew pulpit, tower base, south aisle GeoUK 5441781.jpg
File:St Nicholas, East Challow - geograph.org.uk - 1541261.jpg	File:East Challow St Nicholas from W GeoUK 1541261.jpg
File:Inside St James the Great, Claydon (b) - geograph.org.uk - 5100370.jpg	File:Claydon St James aisle GeoUK 5100370.jpg
File:Inside St James the Great, Claydon (d) - geograph.org.uk - 5100372.jpg	File:Claydon St James westward GeoUK 5100372.jpg
File:Church of St Mary, Chalgrove - the nave - geograph.org.uk - 4075620.jpg	File:Chalgrove St Mary eastward GeoUK 4075620.jpg
File:Inside St Stephen's church, Clanfield, Oxon - geograph.org.uk - 2518388.jpg	File:Clanfield St Stephen nave arcade aisle GeoUK 2518388.jpg
File:Back down the Nave of St Michael's Church, Blewbury - geograph.org.uk - 4876281.jpg	File:Blewbury St Michael westward GeoUK 4876281.jpg
File:Back down the Nave of St Michael's Church, Blewbury - geograph.org.uk - 4876281.jpg	File:Blewbury st Michael westward GeoUK 4876281.png
File:Pulpit View in St Michael's Church, Blewbury - geograph.org.uk - 4883395.jpg	File:Blewbury SW-ward from the pulpit GeoUK 4883395.jpg
File:Langford, St. Matthew's Church, c12th nave with Anglo Saxon tower arch - geograph.org.uk - 5441779.jpg	File:Langford St Matthew nave, tower base, chancel GeoUK 5441779.jpg
File:The Church Organ of Holy Trinity Church, Ardington - geograph.org.uk - 3912430.jpg	File:Ardington Holy Trinity organ in the chancel GeoUK 3912430.jpg
File:St Mary the Virgin church in Ashbury - geograph.org.uk - 4126452.jpg	File:Ashbury St Mary Virg from N GeoUK 4126452.jpg
File:Pulpit & cover in Holy Trinity Church, Ardington - geograph.org.uk - 3912065.jpg	File:Ardington Holy Trinity pulpit betw chancel & north chapel 3912065.jpg
File:Urn by the Arch in Holy Trinity Church, Ardington - geograph.org.uk - 3913855.jpg	File:Ardington Holy Trinity chancel northeastward GeoUK 3913855.jpg
File:Through the chancel arch in the Holy Trinity Ardington - geograph.org.uk - 3912071.jpg	File:Ardington Holy Trinity chancel GeoUK 3912071.jpg
File:View of the nave in the Holy Trinity Ardington - geograph.org.uk - 3910409.jpg	File:Ardington Holy Trinity eastward GeoUK 3910409.jpg
File:View of the nave in the Holy Trinity Ardington - geograph.org.uk - 3910409.jpg	File:Ardington Holy Trinity eastward GeoUK 3910409.png
File:Interior of Honington church - geograph.org.uk - 5369371.jpg	File:Honington All Saints interior GeoUK 5369371.jpg
File:St John the Baptist, Hillingdon - East end - geograph.org.uk - 5361430.jpg	File:Hillingdon St John B transept eastward GeoUK 5361430.jpg
File:St John the Baptist, Hillingdon - East end - geograph.org.uk - 5361432.jpg	File:Hillingdon St John B chancel eastward GeoUK 5361432.jpg
File:St George, Woolhope - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4513320.jpg	File:Woolhope St George south arcade GeoUK 4513320.jpg
File:St George, Woolhope - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4513315.jpg	File:Woolhope St George arcades GeoUI 4513315.jpg
File:St Andrew's church, Alwington (interior) - geograph.org.uk - 3512643.jpg	File:Alwington St Andrew eastward GeoUK 3512643.jpg
File:Nave from the Door of Holy Trinity Church, Headington Quarry - geograph.org.uk - 4316777.jpg	File:Headington Holy Trinity eastward GeoUK 4316777.jpg
File:Sampford Courtenay, St Andrews Church- The barrel vault in the nave (geograph 4951626).jpg	File:Sampford Courtenay St Andrew eastw barrel, half barrel, flat 4951626.jpg
File:Parish Church of St Andrew, Plymouth - geograph.org.uk - 4954835.jpg	File:Plymouth St Andrew from NE GeoUK 4954835.jpg
File:View inside Holne church - geograph.org.uk - 3961271.jpg	File:Holne St Mary westward GeoUK 3961271.jpg
File:St Endellion church nave - geograph.org.uk - 4185921.jpg	File:St Endellion nave+aisle looking NE GeoUK 4185921.jpg
File:From the South Aisle at St John the Baptist South Moreton - geograph.org.uk - 4405850.jpg	File:South Moreton Oxfordshire eastward heavy arcade 4405850.jpg
File:East Budleigh Church - geograph.org.uk - 117978.jpg	File:East Budleigh All Saints fro SW GeoUK 117978.jpg
File:South Somercotes, St. Peter's Church, The nave - geograph.org.uk - 5154611.jpg	File:South Somercotes St Peter eastward 5154611.jpg
File:Parish Church, Clyst St George - geograph.org.uk - 4823519.jpg	File:Clyst St George parish church north face GeoUK4823519.jpg
File:Linton Mary nave to chancel 1488624 J. Billinger.jpg	File:Linton St Mary east end with chancel GeoUK1488624.jpg
File:North aisle, St Weonards - geograph.org.uk - 4116139.jpg	File:St Weonard - north aisle from W GeoUK 4116139.jpg
File:The Chancel, St. Mary's Church, Funtington, West Sussex - geograph.org.uk - 4168757.jpg	File:Funtington chancel GeoUK 4168757.jpg
File:The Nave, Funtington parish church - geograph.org.uk - 4168777.jpg	File:Funtington St Mary eastward GeoUK 4168777.jpg
File:Inside St Peter, Henfield (xi) - geograph.org.uk - 4289446.jpg	File:Henfield St Peter towards SE GeoUK 4289446.jpg
File:St. John the Baptist, Kirdford - north aspect - geograph.org.uk - 2130373.jpg	File:KIrdford north aisle west Geo UK 2130373.jpg
File:Christmas at St Stephen, North Mundham (3) - geograph.org.uk - 2208683.jpg	File:North Mundham St Stephen balcony + arcade 2208683.jpg
File:Interior of St Marys, Sullington - geograph.org.uk - 2473483.jpg	File:Sulllington St Mary eastward 2473483.jpg
File:The Nave, looking West, St. Mary's church, Aldingbourne - geograph.org.uk - 4252267.jpg	File:Aldingbourne St Mary eastward GeoUK 4252267.jpg
File:The Nave, St. Mary's church, Aldingbourne - geograph.org.uk - 4252222.jpg	File:Aldingbourne St Mary westward GeoUK4252222.jpg
File:St Nicholas, Poling, nave - geograph.org.uk - 2339872.jpg	File:Poling Nicholas nave GeoUK 2339872.jpg
File:St John the Baptist Church, Findon, West Sussex - geograph.org.uk - 3499679.jpg	File:Findon St John from NW GeoUK 3499679.jpg
File:South chapel, All Saints' church, Icklesham - geograph.org.uk - 3786505.jpg	File:Icklesham, All Saints, eastern section GeoUK 3786505.jpg
File:Inside St Nicholas, Pevensey (ix) - geograph.org.uk - 4790774.jpg	File:Pevensey St Nicholas nave towards SE 4790774.jpg
File:The Church of St Mary the Virgin, Hook - geograph.org.uk - 5458193.jpg	File:Hook St Mary east end GeoUK5458193.jpg
File:St Andrew's Church, Bainton - geograph.org.uk - 5466038.jpg	File:Bainton St Andrew eastward GeoUK 5466038.jpg
File:St. James' church, Dry Doddington- geograph.org.uk - 5285927.jpg	File:Dry Doddington St James from SSW.jpg
File:St.James' nave, Dry Doddington - geograph.org.uk - 5285939.jpg	File:Dry Doddington St James nave to chancel.jpg
File:Holy Trinity, West Runton, Norfolk - East end - geograph.org.uk - 2198542.jpg	File:West Runton, Holy TRinity. eastward 2198542.jpg
File:The church of SS Peter and Paul in Shernborne - view west - geograph.org.uk - 1937475.jpg	File:Shernborne St Peter and St Paul, westward, 1937475.jpg
File:Interior, St Mary's church, Leigh (16210075680).jpg	File:Leigh, St Mary's, eastward (J P Guffogg).jpg

A version of this table with all the images visible is available at User:Bjh21/Redundant derivatives of Geograph images/Visual table.

I've replaced all uses of the redundant files in mainspace, though there are some left in user space on German Wikipedia. If deleted they should be replaced by redirects to the originals.

Past bulk DRs of upscaled Geograph images include Commons:Deletion requests/Upscaled Geograph images by User:Scotire and Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "jmc4 -Church Explorer".

User:Bjh21s destructive changes in the mainspace arcticles have been reverted.--Ulamm (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologise for the number of files in this DR. If there's anything I can do to make it easier for people to deal with, please let me know. --bjh21 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bjh21 should apologize for something else.

Many if not most of User:Bjh21's so called "original files" are not the original files on the Geograph server, but versions of reduced resolution, offered for automatical download. Better resolutions, more similar to the original files, can be won by screenshots and fit Geograph's CC-by-SA 2.0 conditions, as well. (See above).--Ulamm (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have compared the sizes of the files in the left column above against the gridimage_size dump from http://data.geograph.org.uk/dumps/. In all cases the Commons file matches the original_width and original_height fields from the corresponding row of gridimage_size, except where those fields are zero in which case it matches the width and height fields.

Ulamm claims that Geograph has secret larger versions of each these files that aren't mentioned in the database dump but that can be obtained by screenshotting the Web site. However, these screenshots are mostly simply enlarged versions of either the version of the file that is downloadable from Geograph or (for larger pictures) the 1024-pixel version that Geograph puts on its photo pages. This can be seen by the fact that the pictures in the right column above, while sometimes having more pixels than the pictures on the left, never have any more detail. A particularly obvious example is File:Winston (Durham) St Andrew from WSW GeoUK 223753.jpg, where the heavy JPEG artefacts and pixelation of File:Winston, Co. Durham, St Andrew's Church - geograph.org.uk - 223753.jpg are reproduced at large scale. Similarly, File:St Andrews Church, Alphington Road, Exeter - geograph.org.uk - 58320.jpg shows clear pixelation on the street lamp, and in File:East Budleigh All Saints fro SW GeoUK 117978.jpg the pixels of File:East Budleigh Church - geograph.org.uk - 117978.jpg are visible across the whole picture. --bjh21 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some originals have really low resolutions. In some cases even Geograph warns of low resolutions. In such cases I did not take screenshots, of course. But claiming deletion, User:Bjh21 has to prove the low resolution of the original file (not the file offered for download!), in every single case.--Ulamm (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I have struck File:WestleyWaterless St Mary from NW GeoUK 6021180.png from the list and table above because its situation is slightly different from the rest and it should be the subject of a different DR. --bjh21 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ulamm has asked above that I "prove the low resolution of the original file (not the file offered for download!), in every single case". This case-by-case analysis will take a little while for 143 files, but I think it's unnecessary for 20 21 of them. These are the ones where the version offered for download from Geograph is larger than the screenshot made by Ulamm. I hope it's obvious that in these cases the screenshot doesn't have any more detail than the download. Here's the list (with sizes):

Geograph download	Ulamm screenshot
(2592 × 1944) File:St Nicholas church, Willoughby - geograph.org.uk - 3767447.jpg	(1938 × 1448) File:Willoughby St Nicholas fr SE GeoUK 3767447.jpg
(4760 × 3162) File:Coleshill, St.Peter and St. Paul's church - geograph.org.uk - 4934611.jpg	(2186 × 1434) File:Coleshill St Peter & Paul near from S GeoUK 4934611.jpg
(2560 × 1920) File:St Gregory the Great's church, Dawlish - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4489159.jpg	(2052 × 1536) File:Dawlish St Gregory chancel + south chapel GeoUK 4489159.jpg
(4000 × 3000) File:The church of St Petrock at Newton St Petrock - geograph.org.uk - 3702354.jpg	(1936 × 1444) File:Newton St Petrock church fr S GeoUK 3702354.jpg
(3675 × 2687) File:Church of St Sylvester - geograph.org.uk - 3900071.jpg	(2100 × 1538) File:Chivelstone St Sylvester from ESE GeoUK 3900071.jpg
(5100 × 3238) File:Chittlehampton, St. Hieritha's church, The nave - geograph.org.uk - 4950869.jpg	(2434 × 1532) File:Chittehampton St Hieritha eastward 4950869.jpg
(3648 × 2736) File:St Michaels Church - geograph.org.uk - 1900974.jpg	(2052 × 1540) File:Brierley Hill St Michael GeoUK 1900974.jpg
(4608 × 3456) File:St Bartholomew's Church, Longbenton - geograph.org.uk - 3641043.jpg	(2054 × 1542) File:Longbenton St Bartholomew from S GeoUK 3641043.jpg
(2848 × 2134) File:Pirbright Scarecrow Festival 2013 - geograph.org.uk - 3512754.jpg	(2050 × 1544) File:Pirbright St Michael chancel GeoUK 3512754.jpg
(5069 × 3320) File:Yarnton, St. Bartholomew's Church, The interior from the south door - geograph.org.uk - 5200591.jpg	(2348 × 1540) File:Yarnton St Bartholomew aisle & nave eastward GeoUK 5200591.jpg
(3675 × 2446) File:Yarnton, St. Bartholomew's Church, The nave with its unusual chancel arch and c15th painting - geograph.org.uk - 5196508.jpg	(2320 × 1544) File:Yarnton St Bartholomew nave & aisle eastward GeoUK 5196508.jpg
(5520 × 3680) File:Radley, St. James the Great Church, The nave with its rare timber arcade - geograph.org.uk - 5192676.jpg	(2320 × 1536) File:Radley St James eastward GeoUK 5192676.jpg
(2451 × 3680) File:Langford, St. Matthew's Church, c17th polygonal wooden pulpit on stone stem 1 - geograph.org.uk - 5441781.jpg	(1020 × 1518) File:Langford St Matthew pulpit, tower base, south aisle GeoUK 5441781.jpg
(5106 × 3341) File:Langford, St. Matthew's Church, c12th nave with Anglo Saxon tower arch - geograph.org.uk - 5441779.jpg	(2338 × 1526) File:Langford St Matthew nave, tower base, chancel GeoUK 5441779.jpg
(4875 × 3118) File:Sampford Courtenay, St Andrews Church- The barrel vault in the nave (geograph 4951626).jpg	(1880 × 1192) File:Sampford Courtenay St Andrew eastw barrel, half barrel, flat 4951626.jpg
(4912 × 3264) File:View inside Holne church - geograph.org.uk - 3961271.jpg	(2132 × 1412) File:Holne St Mary westward GeoUK 3961271.jpg
(5438 × 3554) File:South Somercotes, St. Peter's Church, The nave - geograph.org.uk - 5154611.jpg	(2348 × 1518) File:South Somercotes St Peter eastward 5154611.jpg
(6016 × 4000) File:North aisle, St Weonards - geograph.org.uk - 4116139.jpg	(2270 × 1502) File:St Weonard - north aisle from W GeoUK 4116139.jpg
(3210 × 2376) File:The Nave, looking West, St. Mary's church, Aldingbourne - geograph.org.uk - 4252267.jpg	(2074 × 1532) File:Aldingbourne St Mary eastward GeoUK 4252267.jpg
(3264 × 2448) File:The Nave, St. Mary's church, Aldingbourne - geograph.org.uk - 4252222.jpg	(2052 × 1528) File:Aldingbourne St Mary westward GeoUK4252222.jpg
(4849 × 3212) File:Interior, St Mary's church, Leigh (16210075680).jpg	(1726 × 1126) File:Leigh, St Mary's, eastward (J P Guffogg).jpg

I hope to be able to provide further evidence soon. --bjh21 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(List above amended to add File:Dawlish St Gregory chancel + south chapel GeoUK 4489159.jpg, which I missed the first time) --bjh21 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I've discovered that I listed File:Wellesbourne St Peter eastward GeoUK 4793913.jpg twice in the main list and table above. I have struck the second occurrence, so 142 files remain. --bjh21 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two TIFF files are also quite straightforward: these have exactly the same number of pixels as the JPEG files available from Geograph and are visually identical to them:

Geograph JPEG	Ulamm TIFF
(1067 × 1600) File:St Augustine's church, Heanton Punchardon - geograph.org.uk - 3221284.jpg	(1067 × 1600) File:Heanton Punchardon St Augustine tower+aisle from NW GeoUK 3221284.tif
(2560 × 1920) File:St Gregory the Great's church, Dawlish - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4489159.jpg	(2560 × 1920) File:Dawlish St Gregory chancel + south chapel GeoUK 4489159.tif

I would have tagged them with {{Duplicate}}, but the different format prevents that. --bjh21 (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look in the file histories, you can see that the Geograph JPEGs had been categorized insufficiently, in WM Commons. I searched Geograph, because the building was not presented completely by the building category in the Commons. It is quite often that that category provides very few or non-informative images, whereas in Geograph, the building is presented almost completely. There, sometimes the photos can be found easily, but due to Geographs automatic sorting, investigative skill is afforded. --Ulamm (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General suggestion:

bjh21 should reduce his deletion request to the two lower lists and withdraw the deletion tag from all files in the long list above.
Deletion affords a new exchange in the using WP articles!
He can keep the long list in his own name space and examine the files there, carefully.
He has to know and to consider that in of many Geograph photos I did not only take screenshots, but I improved expositions in order to improve the visibility of details, especially of ceilings, whithout changing the atmosphere (except if a photo was generally underexposed). In some cases, inside the ceiling is brighter, but the walls almost look like in the photo provided in Geograph. Or outside black shadows have been converted into interesting walls, but the sky shows the same clouds as in the native photo.
He can claim deletions for single files or small groups, step by step.--Ulamm (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ulamm: I am quite happy for this DR to be closed so that I can submit more focussed DRs for specific groups of files. Unfortunately, I think COM:DR forbids me to close it myself: Deletion requests must not be closed by the nominator that created them unless done before anyone else has contributed to the request. I think any other user (including you) is allowed to close this DR though. Once it's closed I can use VFC to remove the {{Delete}} templates. --bjh21 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think, anybody, who has requested a deletion, can renounce his request before a definitive judgement. This does not prevent him to repeat the request, once he can present a better substantiation. Nobody else is allowed to withdraw a request, without a consent.--Ulamm (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ulamm: I consent to the closure of this request. But according to Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions, I must not close it myself. Here's the German translation of the rule from Commons:Deletion requests/de#Diskussionen schließen: Löschantrage dürfen nicht durch den Antragsteller geschlossen werden, es sei denn, es haben noch keine anderen Benutzer Kommentare zum Antrag abgegeben. But you are allowed to close the request: Nicht-Administratoren können eine Löschdiskussion mit dem Ergebnis „Behalten“ beenden, wenn sie ein gutes Verständnis des Prozesses haben und wenn die Beendigung unumstritten ist. --bjh21 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the discussion was only among us two, we need an agreement of us two to keep the files of the upper list.--Ulamm (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the result of this deletion request should be to keep all of the files mentioned. That does not mean that I think the files should be kept permanently, but that I think this deletion request is too big to be useful. I expect to open further, smaller deletion requests later. --bjh21 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Suggestion:

For the 21 files, where the screenshots have lesser resolutions than the offered downloads, the screenshots should be deleted as consequence of this discussion.
The two TIFFs, I created because the JPEGs had not been categorized to the buildings, should be deleted, too. Both photos have no reason to improve them. (which is better using TIFFs, because in JPEGs, outlines and the distinction of neighboring colors become weaker by every revision.)
Only the files in the upper list should be kept.--Ulamm (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only an administrator can close a deletion request with a decision to delete, so if you want that outcome you'll have to wait for an administrator to close this request. Or you can close it yourself with a decision to keep everything. Your choice. --bjh21 (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So let us agree to stop this DR immediately, and you make a new one with the 21 and the two files, to which I won't object.--Ulamm (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; I agree. Please do it! --bjh21 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At first, you have to withdraw your {{Delete}} templates from the files. Otherwise, an administrator may believe there were no opposition against your deletion requests, though your deletion request without opening a discussion was illegal.--Ulamm (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erm, no. From {{Delete}}: Bitte entferne diese Markierung nicht, solange die Diskussion nicht beendet wurde. First you close the discussion, then anyone can remove the templates. --bjh21 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Bitte entferne diese Markierung nicht, solange die Diskussion nicht beendet wurde." means that the defender mustn`t withdraw the templates. Otherwise there would be edit wars between those who apply the templates an those who withdraw them. But somebody, who has applied a {{Delete}} template, is always allowed to withdraw it.

Normally, there is a discussion on each single file. During the discussion, the deletion is requested but blocked. As the result of the discussion, the deletion will be executed, or it will be averted.

In the case of your mass deletion attack, finishing the discussion without withdrawing the templates would appear like an approval for deletions. The protection of the files in course of the discussion would be lost.--Ulamm (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're mistaken, but I have decided to ignore all rules and have removed the {{Delete}} templates anyway. Now will you close this request? --bjh21 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And of course, it is your job to finish this discussion with your summary "Requests withdrawn", after the cleaning.--Ulamm (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests withdrawn. --bjh21 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thread finishd in consent to keep all. Can be archivated.--Ulamm (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Image from page 230 of "The Biological bulletin".jpg[edit]

From flickr, but wrong metadata @ https://archive.org/details/biologicalbullet205mari source: That book is published August 2003 and I don't see a free license note inside. Metadata on archive.org says CC BY-NC-SA.

Also affected:

Achim55 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Grande Comore.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Grande Comore.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Blazon grande comore.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Grande Comore.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Walter Womacka on stamps[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the artists death. In this case the artist, Walter Womacka, died in 2010. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2081.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mosaic shown on File:Stamp Eisenhuettenstadt Womacka.jpg is on the outside of a building in Germany, so freedom of panorama applies.

Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Madonna di Lourdes (Forette, Vigasio)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Gelindo Giacomello, died in 2011. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2082.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cosa si intende per FOP?

Mi chiedo, a questo punto, perché ci siano su Wikimedia foto di monumenti di architetti viventi o dello stesso architetto Giacomello ma non sopposti a tale procedura.

Forse ignoro la normativa, può essere, però sono perplesso. MZ14 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dimenticavo.

Foto eseguite da me e non prese da pubblicazioni. MZ14 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FOP is an acronym for Freedom of Panorama, which you can read about at Commons:Freedom of panorama. Although it's kind of long. So a better summary that is more specific Italy is probably Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Freedom of panorama. Essentially it's the legal right to take photographs of otherwise copyrighted works in public places without being sued for copyright infringement. Unfortunately Italy doesn't have such a permission and WLMI (as well as other WLM groups BTW) seem to be pretty lax in not reviewing images people upload on their behalf for copyright before allowing them do so. I don't necessarily put that on you or anyone else who uploads such images. WLMs projects should really do more to educate people who participate in the event about what is or isn't acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ti ringrazio per la risposta.

Sì, pensandoci mi è venuto il tuo stesso dubbio a riguardo di WLMI. MZ14 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000[edit]

FOP in Germany doesn't include pictures taken on private property, which these images seem to be taken on. So they are copyrighted until an undernimmed date since at least one of the buildings architects, Erick van Egeraat, seems to still be alive.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree I took a closer look at the location on Open Street Map. The images were taken from a public path between the train tracks and the building according to the specified coordinates. I couldn't find any evidence to prove that this is a private road. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did actually look into it before I nominated the imaged for deletion. The public path goes along the outside of the property, but most if not all of these images were clearly taken on the property, not from the path. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took these pictures and they are all taken from a public street.--Carl Ha (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No they aren't. The geo locations connected to both File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 6.jpg and File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 5.jpg match up where you took the photographs pretty well, which was on the property in the grass. So you clearly didn't take all the photographs from the street. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

iPhone GPS are +-10 meters at least… --Carl Ha (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 3.jpg – the stone on the lower left corner marks the border, so I clearly stood on the street

Keep File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 4.jpg – here the same, you even see the street

Keep File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 5.jpg – the sign in the lower left corner is a sign on the border so that people on the street can read it and inform about the house

Keep File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 6.jpg - the sign standing on the border with text towards the street (coordinates of the sign: 48.80399349004199, 9.188647490075608, check on google maps satellite image)

Keep File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 7.jpg – here you see the road on the lower left corner

the only picture without a clear proof in the image where it was taken is File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 8.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really feel like doing a point by point to the centimeter analysis of every image I nominated for deletion but File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 6.jpg was clearly taken on the property. There's no other way you could have photographed the buildings that closely or with the perspective otherwise. The same goes for most of the other images. Like this one, where your clearly on the property even if your standing on a path. There's no reason the other photographs wouldn't be on the property if those ones. No one expects us to get a ruler and measure the property line by the inch based on parcel maps or whatever to prove it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I explained you before, the sign in File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 6.jpg stands towards the street. There is no way to photograph this sign if you stand on the property. I showed you on the satellite picture. If you're not willing to check that, then don't ask for deletion. Carl Ha (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DR is largely based on satellite pictures. It's not like I started this for no reason or without researching the locations of the images first. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then perhaps it would be good if you responded to my replies? Carl Ha (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did. The comment your replying to is literally a response to you saying I didn't check the satellite images. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep File:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000 8.jpg I don't see anything worth protecting in thise picture. --Lukas Beck (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Could de minimis work for this file?--Lukas Beck (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably. I wasn't solid on that one to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Casa de Vidro[edit]

FOP in Brazil doesn't include private residences or property and the architect of this house, Lina Bo Bardi, died in 1992. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2063.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Glass House is a heritage site listed by Condephaat(Conselho de Defesa do Patrimônio Histórico, Arqueológico, Artístico e Turístico do Estado de São Paulo), since 1987. This monument was on the Wiki Loves Monuments Brasil 2023 (code Q28105029). The purpose of these photos was under no circumstances to harm the architect Lina Bo Bardi. The idea for these photos was celebrate this important monument for the city of São Paulo. This house was the first in one of the most essential neighborhoods in São Paulo.

If there is any possibility of keeping these photos on Wikimedia Commons, I think it would be important for the preservation of the history of the Morumbi neighborhood, Casa de Vidro and Lina Bo Bardi. Vinícius Boaventura (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I think people from 1063 would be very surprised to see these. :-) But seriously: Vinícius Boaventura, sure there's a way: Get in touch with the heir(s) of Lina Bo Bardi and have them contact COM:VRT if they choose to give permission to publish these photos under a type of Creative Commons license that's usable per COM:Licensing. Also, note that if it takes a while to find out who you need to contact and get permission and these photos are "deleted," that only means they are hidden from view, so any time the heirs would like to email permission would be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Casa de Vidro is not a private residence, it is a museum. It is the headquarters of the Lino Bo and P. M. Bardi Institute and it's also listed as part of Brazilian artistic and architectonic heritage. It receives regular visitors daily. As stated in their website, "Casa de Vidro is a non-profit civil society organization based in the city of São Paulo", with the aim of "preserving and publicizing the artistic legacy of Lina and P. M. Bardi; ensuring the conservation and organization of its archive – comprising drawings, projects, correspondence, documents and others – and facilitating access to the public". It is a house-museum devoted to the life of one of the most importante architects from Brazil. [1] Dornicke (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I understand people can book advance reservations to tour the house but its closed to the public other then that and is still considered a private residence. All be it one that technically people can visit if they book a tour ahead of time, but that's not really what the law means by a public place. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you don't need to book. You can visit the museum on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, twice a day. You need to book the vist if you're a resercher, who wants to have contact with the archives or the collection, or if you want a private guide helping you out. The museum also offers temporary exhibitions, musical events, it has a store, it offers rooms to location for marriage and events. It's definitely not a private house. Nobody lives there. It doesn't belong to a family. It belongs to an art institute. People just go there to work, appreciate the collection, the architecture. It's a house museum. Like hundreds of house-museums all over Europe and United States. Dornicke (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I read and I've looked into it. So do you have a source for any of that? No one needs to live for it to be a private house. All the organization that currently owns it needs to do is have conditions on who can visit the place and when, which even if I go by what your saying sounds like they do. BTW, you know everything you said applies to plenty of private places right? Like private wineries that do wine tours and special events. Movie theatres, same thing. Same with pizza parlors. Or are you going to argue movie theatres or pizza parlors are public places because they do special events and you can watch movies in a theatre at specific times? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in the museum website [2]: "The Instituto Bardi / Casa de Vidro is open to the public on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays at two times: 10am, 11:30am, 2pm and 3:30pm". My point is that it is not a house. It's not used as a house. It was a house until the 90s. When the Bardis died, they left the house for their institute and it was transformed into a museum. It's not a recognized as a house under Brazilian law. As it's informed in the previous link, it's a "non-profit civil society organization". This is quite easy to be verified. It's quite a famous Brazilian museum. Casa de Vidro was listed by Financial Times as one of the best house museums of the world, ranked #14 [3]. It's a museum. It's not a house. It's like sending Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum or Frick Collections files to be deleted saying it's a private residence. It makes no sense. Dornicke (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, it is a house. I never claimed people still lived in it though did I? The building can be inhabited by a "non-profit civil society organization", but that's not really the point or what makes somewhere a private place. It has nothing to do with if an organization or person is using the building and I never claimed it did. You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying and bringing up a lot of irrelevant side points in the process though. Look, here's the way I see this since you don't seem to be getting the point. The building is being inhabited by an institute that does special events sometimes and lets people tour the building under certain conditions. No one is disputing that. I know I'm not. But what I'm saying is that the inhabitants of a building providing tours of the house at specific dates, times, and under certain conditions, doesn't make it the building a public place. Same goes for the fact that people have their weddings there sometimes. A place needs to have consistent, un-restricted access by members of the public to qualify as a public place and this house clearly doesn't have either one. Even you have said as much. But I'm sick of being talked past. So I'd appreciate it if we ended the discussion here. The closer will read the evidence both sides and close this appropriately. There isn't really anything else to discuss about it at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your point is wrong. You're saying that this is a "private residence". It is not. It is a museum. Museums are not private residences. Therefore, your justification for deletion is false. This is not a house. This is a museum. People have access to it regularly. They just need to go on visitation days and hours, just like any other museum of the world. That's the point. The fact that it houses exhibitions, musical events, marriages, are just extra information. The main point is that this is a museum. A museum that was pointed out by Financial Times as one of the best house museums of the world [4]. A museum that is listed as a tourist attaction and has dozens of reviews by visitors in TripAdvisor [5]. A museum that is included in the researches by the British Council fellowship [6]. I don't understand why you are sending pictures of a museum to deletion saying it is a house. Even after I proved it is a museum. I really don't. Dornicke (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're saying that this is a "private residence". No, I said that's what a website I read called it. I even said in my original message FOP in Brazil doesn't include "private residences or property." I'm sure you get the difference. Now can we be done with the conversation like I said I wanted to be or do you have anything else you want to twist around about what I said? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't get the difference. This is not a private residence, nor a private farm, nor private plot of land. This is a museum. Unless you're saying that museums are included in the definition of "private property"? Other than that, I don't get the difference. Dornicke (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've provided absolutely zero evidence that it's a museum, let alone a public place, brought up a bunch of irrelevant strawman like your comment some random Flickr account, and ignored essentially everything I've said in the process. Including the multiple counter examples I've provided of other places that do exactly the same things you claim this place does that aren't public places, things I've cited from reputable websites, my saying what makes somewhere a public place or not Etc. Etc. literally the only argument you've made is repeatedly saying "museum, museum, museum!!" over and over while ignoring everything else. So it's no wonder you don't get the difference. You ignored it the multiple times I explained it to you! Now can we be done already? I told you there's nothing more to discuss here and I don't care how this closed. So get the hint and drop it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've posted the museum website [7], I've posted the museum working hours and information to visitors [8], I've posted the link to Financial Times, where they clearly say this is one of the best house museums in the world [9]. I've posted a link to British Council [10], where they clearly say "Pietro Bardi opened The Glass House up as a museum of sorts in the mid 1990s". I am Brazilian, I live in São Paulo, I've visited this museum dozens of times. I understand you made a mistake, and it's perfectly understandable. But why are you insisting in your mistake? Dornicke (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you refuse to drop this for some reason, where exactly does their website say they are a museum? Because I read through it and I couldn't find them use that word anywhere. At least not on the page that you've linked to. And I don't care what the financial times calls them in some random travel blog post. Just like you don't seem to care that this website (which was Co-funded by the European Union BTW!) calls it a private residence. So where does the page that you provided me a link to say their a museum? And no I don't care that you've visited the place. There should be actual evidence that its a museum outside of your personal experience or a random travel blog. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your source just says it was designed to be a house. All sources will say this building was designed to be a house since it was designed to be a house. But now, it is a museum. It has been a museum for decades, as all the sources I've shown to you state. Just because you are chosing to ignore what all sources say doesn't make you less wrong about this. I understand you are embarassed for being proven wrong, but this is a collective project and requires responsability. You are sending legitimate pictures people took time to contribute, to share, and that serve educational purpose, to deletion just because you can't admit you are wrong. Dornicke (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So in other words they don't say their a museum anywhere on their site. I thought not. But hey, a random travel blog calls them. So they must be right? Your the one who's unwilling to admit your wrong here and that's a perfect example of it. Your the one who linked to their website and acted like it was evidence that their a museum, which the page that linked to doesn't say, and then you ignore me when I asked you where it says what you claimed it did. I've said multiple times now I could care less now how this is closed and that I'll willing to leave it up to the closing administrator. Your the one who won't just drop it and keeps insisting on their position. I'm done here though. You clearly have no evidence from a reliable source that their a museum. Although again, I could really care less. Your the one making an issue out of this when there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that COM:FOP Brazil includes "places available to the public", including private property and building interiors. I don't think that temporary requirements to email the museum in order to visit (see "How do visits to Instituto Bardi / Casa de Vidro works?" and "Is it necessary to schedule the visit?" under "VISITS") should be a reason to delete these photos, but if they really are, they should be undeleted immediately whenever people are again allowed to visit without emailing in advance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was also a news story or something that I can't find the link to right now that said they are currently closed and people need to make reservations to visit the place. I don't know or care which one is correct, but if they are closed and require people to schedule to visits then that does go against them being a public place. At least for the time being, if not permanently, and I'd have zero problem with the images being undeleted if or when they start regular visits again if they are deleted. I could really less either way outside of the ridiculously bad faithed, if not bordering on harassing, way I've been treated about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These restrictions were applied during the covid pandemics. And even if they were currently being applied, that doesn't change the fact that this is a museum, a historical landmark. Several historical landmarks limit visitations due to the need of conservation. That's the case of Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, in the United States, which is a house-museum projected to be a residence that requires reservations. And it doesn't stop being a house-museum due to that. And no one will require their files to be deleted saying it's a private residence. Dornicke (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that they don't even call themselves a museum and your acting the fact that a couple of travel blogs do like its somehow a free pass to say its a public place. Despite the clear evidence that they restrict access to the public. But regardless, just because there's a general exception in the law for "museums" context still matters and it doesn't every single minor place that some random blogger says is or that allows visitd to ths public with a reservation qualifies. There's obviously more to it then just the Financial Times saying they are a museum for them to then be a public place. That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not "a couple of travel blogs". There are thousands of links saying it is a museum. I could spend days posting all of them here and you will still pretend they don't exist. Financial Times i not a "travel blog". British Council is not a travel blog. Casa de Vidro calls itself an art institute. Eva Klabin Foundation calls itself a foundation. Fallingwater calls itself a historical house. And they are all museums. You just need to understand the definition of a house-museum and then compare the definition to these institutions. A place which conserves, studies and displays an art collection, receives visitants to see this art collection, produces art catalogues, art exhibitions, art events is a museum. It's quite easy to understand what a museum is. And it doesn't depend if the museum calls itself a museum, an institute, a foundation, etc. Dornicke (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Financial Times i not a "travel blog". British Council is not a travel blog. The link is for a blog post about travel though, which isn't a reliable source on what kind of institution it is regardless of if the Financial Times itself is a travel blog or not. And as to the British Council, maybe I'd care if you hadn't of treated me like the multiple sources I provided saying they were closed outside of reservations or the one saying it's a private residence weren't invalid. You seem to want to have it both ways where your sources are totally legitimate experts on the subjects no matter what they are but mine aren't.

Casa de Vidro calls itself an art institute. Eva Klabin Foundation calls itself a foundation. That's been my whole point. According to Google an art institute "refers to a place, where an artist can give and get a professional training. It can be a school, a university, a guild or a private apprenticeship in a workshop." Now maybe it's just me, but whichever one of those describes Casa de Vidro none of them are a "museum" and at least a few (if not all of them) clearly aren't public places. I'm sure you'll find a reason to dismiss that while continuing to act like a blog post calling them a museum should be treated as gospel though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you can rely on the name in your argument. Do you want to argue that the Art Institute of Chicago, one of the most famous art museums in the U.S., is not a museum because of its name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that in reference to my comment or Dornickes? If it has to do with mine, I never said it has anything to do with their name. But what kind of organization they say they are or at least if they put themselves forward to the public as a museum, which I'm pretty sure the art institute of Chicago does. Their website header literally says "Downtown Chicago's #1 museum." So that's clearly what they think they are. Whereas that doesn't go for Casa de Vidro. I think they only use the term "museum" once on their website in some ad copy about the history of the house. They certainly aren't putting themselves out there as São Paulo's #1 museum or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 - Casa de Vidro Conservation Management Plan, funded by Getty Foundation, calling it a "house museum" at least 11 times [11]. 2 - Article published by Pin-Up Magazine calling Casa de Vidro "a historic house-museum" [12]. 3 - An article published by ArtReview talking about Casa de Vidro being included in a project about "house-museums". [13]. By the way, it's not an art school, or university, it's a house museum - but art schools and universities are also not residences. So saying that an art institute is a residence or "private property" is still 100% false.Dornicke (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Art institutes" can be on private property. Regardless, and for the 2 second time now, I never it was a residence. The article I've already linked to multiple times did. So I'd appreciate it if you stop treating me like that was or is my position when I was simply telling you what a website called it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You sent these files for deletion saying that Brazilian FOP does not cover private residences or property - which is already wrong, because it does cover private property available to the public. But that's even worse, because this is a house-museum and I have proven it with multiple sources. And, no, I won't stop proving you're wrong. Dornicke (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't saying it was a private residence. I was simply stating what isn't covered by FOP in Brazil. Like if I say "FOP in Italy doesn't cover paintings or statues" and the image is of a statue then it should be pretty obvious that I'm not claiming it's an image of a painting. And as to the "private property" thing, as I think I've already said I meant "private" as in "not public." This had and still has nothing to do with ownership. I don't care if you prove me wrong about anything but it should at least be based on what my actual stances are and what I'm saying, not just strawmen that I've already told you multiple times aren't my positions. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then can you please tell me which Brazilian law says that museums are not covered by FOP? Dornicke (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

These images depict a building in Milan (it:Bosco verticale) by architect it:Stefano Boeri who is still alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.

Stefan4 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[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 in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. At least one architect of the Bosco Verticale, en:Stefano Boeri, is still living. Won't be PD in Italy for at least 70 years.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

The building was completed in 2014, by architect Stefano Boeri (1956–). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Italy, therefore permission from him is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

There is no complete freedom of panorama for free uses of architecture or public art in Italy. IMO the building is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. The author, w:en:Stefano Boeri, is still alive unfortunately.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Stefano Boeri, seems to still be alive. So these images are copyrighted until an undernimmed date.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg per de minimis.--Friniate (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You think that's just an image of the trees and the buildings have nothing to do with it? Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an image of the landscape, besides the trees there are other 2 skyscrapers clearly more visible than the copyrighted building. Friniate (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The building on the other side of the image is also copyrighted. If not also the building in the middle. So it's not like it matters since the image is a copyright violation either way. Or are you going to argue the only thing that matters are the dark, blurry trees in the foreground? Or maybe the photographer was just taking a photograph of the street lamp that's barely even part of it to begin with? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete All, including File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg,which is not a trivial size, therefore not de minimis COM:DM. In addition, the other two buildings may also be copyrighted and should be deleted per COM:PCP Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok to delete others, but File:Milano 11-2011 - panoramio.jpg, File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg, File:Porta Nuova WIP.jpg it's a panoramic photo who don't have the boeri's building or other building to exclusive and central subject. The precautionary principle is fine but it's a bit exaggerated; which it is a freedom paranorma of a street and a night-evening a public park, which are in the background in the background and also partially covered by plants and in a corner: it may be a "sly artifice" of the photographer, but according to Italian jurisprudence they are potentially acceptable. Therefore these could be there, or in any case they should be explored in depth with another discussion-procedure, because if for some they are not consistent with the guidelines it is a "photofinish" issue. 5.90.136.54 12:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Basilica del Sacro Cuore Immacolato di Maria - Interior[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this church, Armando Brasini, died in 1965. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2036.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is simply absurd. Pufui PcPifpef (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pufui PcPifpef: How so? It seems pretty reasonable to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: The deletion would be understandable if the images in question were reproductions of Brasini's autographed designs. But they are photographs taken by me and extensively edited by me. Pufui PcPifpef (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not really how FOP works. You should probably read what FOP means next time before calling a DR absurd when you clearly have no idea what it is. Really, you should have read it before you uploaded the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of proposing a cascading deletion of my photographs, wouldn't it be wiser and more functional to seek proper permissions from those who own them? I do not do this to preserve my privacy, but an administrator could do so on behalf of the project. Pufui PcPifpef (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand its probably not fun getting a bunch of deletion request notification on your talk page, but you should have made sure there were the proper premissions before you uploaded the images. That's not mine or anyone elses responsibilty. Your the one who concented to follow the guidelines and law when you signed up. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, having ascertained this fact, I repeat my question, wich is applicable not only to my personal case: for images that have already been uploaded, before permanently deleting them, wouldn't it be wiser and more functional to seek proper permissions from those who own them? Pufui PcPifpef (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No ones stopping you from doing that if you think they will give you the permission. That has nothing do with if the images can or should be nominated for deletion in thee meantime though. It would be ridiculously unstainable on our end if we dealt with every instance of a copyright violation by seeking out permission from the original copyright owner. Not to mention it probably couldn't be done in most cases anyway. But again, your free to give it a try if you want to contact the architects family to see if they care if we host the images. That's not my responsibility and it has nothing to do with the DR though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hipparchos 1.jpeg[edit]

Image from a 1965 Greek postage stamp. Image is different enough from its public domain inspiration to have a copyright in my opinion. Per COM:Greece, stamps are copyrighted so this is not public domain in Greece yet. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Landschaft 1979.tif[edit]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" Es handelt sich aber um ein Werk des noch nicht 70 Jahre verstorbenen bildenden Künstlers Lutz Matthes Lutheraner (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lyrische Komposition 1976.tif[edit]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" Es handelt sich aber um ein Werk des noch nicht 70 Jahre verstorbenen bildenden Künstlers Lutz Matthes Lutheraner (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gajendra Singh Shekhawat official portrait Lok Sabha.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Happyjit Singh as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a work by Parliament of India.

Converted to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The photo is part of Gajendra Singh Shekhawat profile at india.gov.in. The profile clearly states:

Disclaimer: The Member List and Member Profile published in this page is sourced from the https://sansad.in/ls (Lok Sabha Website)

The same image indeed appears on his profile at the mentioned website. The terms and conditions of this website is quite explicit about its content:

Copyright Policy
Contents of this portal may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from the Parliament of India and National Informatics Centre. If referred to as a part of another website, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website cannot be used in any misleading or objectionable context.

Unless there is a reason that Senate content falls under {{GODL-India}}, we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete Although it's always good to discuss but I can't understand what made the nominator who happens to be an administrator discuss this one. When the website's Copyright policy states that the permission via email is required for using its content. And GODL-India is the tag for Government of India work. But Parliament doesnt come under Government of India. Neither does NIC. Then how is it possible. We could have simply deleted this and started a discussion to clear any doubts people are having. There are more than 20 files under the same source and license that I nominated for deletion and have been deleted. Anyways cheers! Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the problem was that the source url was https://india.gov.in and not https://sansad.in. Günther Frager (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being in hurry is a issue. When we see the policy on india.gov.in website it states that the content is taken from sansad website. So its pretty evident that it is being given the credits so we should proceed to see what the source states. Which says what's already mentioned above. Going to the source makes it clear that this like all others should be Speedy Deleted. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shaan Sengupta: I strongly disagree with you. I understand Abzeronow because it was not evident for me either. The policy of https://india.gov.in, the Government of India website, doesn't mention such a thing. Did you happen to read it? The source of this file doesn't mention sansad either. Did you check it? The source, if you haven't checked it, is this link: https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/mpimages/loksabha/4670.jpg, a JPG file without any metadata point to sansad. I think that the problem here is not that the admin doesn't take the time to analyze a speedy case, it is you the one that is not bothering analyzing the evidence that the admin had. Günther Frager (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Günther Frager I read the policy very well. I am quoting the thing which the link given by you only shows.
Material featured on this Portal may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned.

Now here I have highlighted two parts.
The first one says Email permission required. This isn't followed from what I can see.

The second one says the permission to reproduce is not for things belonging to third party. Which exactly is the case here. The image is a work of Sansad (i.e. Parliament of India) which is not included in Government of India. So GODL tag stands invalid. And the permission is needed from Sansad (not taken again) and that is the one which should be acknowledged. Not Government of India as it is.

And the source from where this image is taken Gajendra Singh Shekhawat also has the disclaimer The Member List and Member Profile published in this page is sourced from the https://sansad.in/ls (Lok Sabha Website). In case of any discrepancy kindly contact https://sansad.in/ls/contactUs.. Am I in need of explaining something else or this much is ok? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are changing your arguments. I quote what you wrote:

When we see the policy on india.gov.in website it states that the content is taken from sansad website.

I told you that is was not true. You can read the green text you put above and check there is no mention to sansad. Stating that some content may come from a third party is quite different as stating all content comes from a third party. You also wrote

And GODL-India is the tag for Government of India work. But Parliament doesnt come under Government of India.

and that is why I hinted that the source link in File:Gajendra Singh Shekhawat official portrait Lok Sabha.jpg (1) pointed to the Goverment of India website where {{GODL-India}} is supposed to be applicable, and (2) that it pointed to an image without information about its provenance and not to Gajendra Singh Shekhawat's profile, where it explicitly states it is third party content. If the file used as source his profile instead of an image, then I would agree with you, but it is not the case here. Günther Frager (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not changing my argument. The disclaimer (I didnt say website privacy policy, just policy, I meant the disclaimer) clearly states that it (the content meaning the file) is taken from Sansad. That's what I said. Maybe my choice of words like always has been wrong. Secondly, the source which is given in the uploaded file is the same when you open the image from the profile which says it is taken from Sansad which means it is taken from there. We can have this image from some other place too. That won't mean that we can use it. They might have the permission which we don't have. Taking it from anywhere doesn't matter. Origin source matters in copyright cases which in this case is Sansad. And even The website credits Sansad. My arguments/choice of words doesn't matter. Maybe I am not good at it. And proving my choice of words won't can't alter that this thing is a blatant copyright violation. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never argued it was not a copyvio, just look who wrote the first reply on this DR. I tried to give you an explanation about why the admin could have converted the SDR into a normal DR. As it is it irrelevant to the DR and you are probably not even interested in it, I will stop here. Günther Frager (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Идинский Острог.jpg[edit]

Self-created artwork without obvious educational use Rtfroot (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Заимка Свирская.jpg[edit]

Self-created artwork without obvious educational use Rtfroot (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ura moci.jpg[edit]

Screenshots from audiovisual works (such as films, television broadcasts, video clips) are often the property of its producer or creator and they may not be uploaded to Commons unless the work itself is in the public domain or released under a free license or unless the copyright holder is willing to release the screenshot under a free license. ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Emmam.jpg[edit]

Files uploaded by Jesus5L (talk · contribs)[edit]

Likely COM:Flickrwashing: a new Flickr account that today uploaded all these images. They are clearly taken from newspapers and magazines and not own work. The images are all related to an Argentine football club. I didn't include images form the 1950s and 1960s as they are public domain in Argentina (and likely in the US, as URAA doesn't apply).

Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It’s likely a sockpuppet/meat puppet account for MatiasLanus14 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , another account dedicated to uploading web images of Lanus. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Confirmed in the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Special:Diff/155156927. nicolas _{talkpage★★★} 04:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Per Anton Rakkestad.jpg[edit]

Possibly copyvio from https://www.eikerbladet.no/minneord/per-anton-rakkestad/skotselv/per-anton-rakkestad/o/5-58-81464 4ing (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:K-kvale-m-kjede.jpg[edit]

No proof of own work 4ing (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] In one case, Commons actually got the file from Flickr, but it's identical to the one on Geograph.

[a]

Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/29

October 29[edit]

File:Zloganje - Cerkev Marijinega obiskanja.jpg[edit]

Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho[edit]

File:遠友夜学校の木造校舎.png[edit]

Files uploaded by CasuarioAlmeriense (talk · contribs)[edit]

File:Blick in die Rathausstrasse in Weinfelden (2023).jpg[edit]

File:Sabine Lackner.jpg[edit]

File:ACH Jr.jpg[edit]

File:Schéma structural de Paris et ses environs.png[edit]

File:Auteursfoto Anne-Lot Hoek.png[edit]

File:Sam Fröjdö.jpg[edit]

File:國民法官新制實施紀念郵票.jpg[edit]

File:Stadtzentrum Weinfelden.jpg[edit]

File:Stadtzentrum Weinfelden.jpg[edit]

File:Stadtzentrum Weinfelden.jpg[edit]

File:Kim Garam at Le Sserafim signing event in 2022.jpg[edit]

File:Vikas Khanna - 1.jpg[edit]

File:Arabic features of Shakespeare.jpg[edit]

File:Sfmomadavantirothko.jpg[edit]

File:Tanya Savicheva Diary1.jpg[edit]

File:Tanya Savicheva 1.jpg[edit]

Redundant derivatives of Geograph images[edit]

File:Image from page 230 of "The Biological bulletin".jpg[edit]

File:Grande Comore.png[edit]

File:Blazon grande comore.png[edit]

Files in Category:Walter Womacka on stamps[edit]

Files in Category:Madonna di Lourdes (Forette, Vigasio)[edit]

Files in Category:Haus 13 für die Wohnen 2000[edit]

Files in Category:Casa de Vidro[edit]

Files in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

Files in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

Files in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

Files in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

Files in Category:Bosco Verticale[edit]

Files in Category:Basilica del Sacro Cuore Immacolato di Maria - Interior[edit]

File:Hipparchos 1.jpeg[edit]

File:Landschaft 1979.tif[edit]

File:Lyrische Komposition 1976.tif[edit]

File:Gajendra Singh Shekhawat official portrait Lok Sabha.jpg[edit]

File:Идинский Острог.jpg[edit]

File:Заимка Свирская.jpg[edit]

File:Ura moci.jpg[edit]

File:Emmam.jpg[edit]

Files uploaded by Jesus5L (talk · contribs)[edit]

File:Per Anton Rakkestad.jpg[edit]

File:K-kvale-m-kjede.jpg[edit]

Navigation menu

Search