Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive June 6th, 2010
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 photographer is not the copyright holder of the album cover. This is a derivative work. --Karppinen (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Obvious case, the flickr user is not the sole creator of this - COM:DW. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspected copyvio from http://www.capitalgate.ae/includes/gallery/photos/image21.jpg ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. —Quibik (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. same image, upscaled a little bit. Obvious copyvio for me. --Martin H. (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misleading title. It's obviouly a bad tasted joke. Stegop (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete out of project scope --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 10:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I think that is probably a speedy one really, thanks Herby talk thyme 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Orphaned personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's other contribution is about the same. Wknight94 talk 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. —Quibik (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Leyo 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Orphaned personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's other contribution is about the same. Wknight94 talk 12:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. —Quibik (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Leyo 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Title Card - Disney watermark in image - No Fair use on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Copyrighted title card with incorrect license information. —Quibik (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ABF: In category Media without a license as of 1 June 2010; no license

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.

Logo - May meet pd-textlogo criteria Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Of course it does. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep PD-textlogo indeed. —Quibik (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case. kept--DieBuche (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is child pornography. It is illegal. 70.160.111.163 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Dost test analysis:

  1. . Whether the genitals or pubic area are the focal point of the image; no
  2. . Whether the setting of the image is sexually suggestive (i.e., a location generally associated with sexual activity, such as a bed); not in a normal sense
  3. . Whether the subject is depicted in an unnatural pose or inappropriate attire considering her age; no
  4. . Whether the subject is fully or partially clothed, or nude; partial, but appropiate in context
  5. . Whether the image suggests sexual coyness or willingness to engage in sexual activity; no
  6. . Whether the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer; unable to determine without context

Summary: Fails (or rather passes?) the Dost test. Image may be provactative to some. Standards are different for cartoons as compared to images of real people. Obscenity law could apply, but Miller analysis results would be similar. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Absolutely not illegal. Strong keep. This image was created by a longterm peerless editor specifically to illustrate what could be a touchy subject, by not being risque. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Legal image, non-pornographic cartoon, self-created by a respected contributor so no copyright violation, and what's more it is actually used to illustrate the topic by 23 wikipedia editions, and Wiktionary as well, so it is entirely and legitimately within project scope. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept because the provided reason for deleting the image is not comprehensible --D-Kuru (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional explanation: Even I can understand why the IP wants to see this image is deleted and even the IP is right in some way (Lolicon images are usually not made so that some people do not jack off to it) it's neither pornographic nor child pornography. Thereby it's also not illegal. It's in scope and no violation of anybodys copyright. Even deletion requests should be open a little bit longer it's not really useful in this case. If you don't agree you can start a new deletion request with a new reason for deletion.

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.

This file was initially tagged by Jean-Paul Corlin as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: precautionary principle. Opportunity to be inconsistent with the “antipédopornographique” legislation in France and in many Western countries. 1989 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Wikipedia is Not censored, this is a free use example without going into sexual detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Free image, passes dost test, a lot of the same points from ~2010 still ring true. It's not provocative, is relevant to an en.wiki page, and was created for the sole purpose of illustrating said topic without being illegal/inappropriate. Tutelary (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The french law (227-23 of Code Penale) said it's forbidden to publish when the minor (real or in fiction) is represented with pornography. In this case, the characters are not nude (all sexual attributes aren't visible) and they are not in suggestive position. The only thing which is sexual in the file is the title, but it's not suffisant.--Gratus (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per dicussion we had almost 9 years ago --D-Kuru (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per previous discussion Nate 2169 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. As above. 大诺史 (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

image seem too small to be useful malo (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Ridiculously small. —Quibik (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced by File:Flag of Ethiopia (1975–1987).svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete SVG is clearly superior here. —Quibik (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is not useful for an educational purpose and the file name disparages the subject. —RP88 08:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free - Clearly screenshot Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Screenshot of non-free software. —Quibik (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 13:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

----

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 13:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 13:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Personal photo with no apparent use. Author's only upload. Wknight94 talk 13:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low resolution upload of an (possible) unnotable person. Quick search gives nothing –Krinkletalk 13:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope. —Quibik (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Unused personal image.Érico Wouters msg 19:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Author's only upload. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose because it adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of higher-quality images we already hold covering the same subject (see Category:Love-bite). The lighting and quality of the photograph is such that the love-bites are virtually indistinguishable from shaving cuts or natural coloration of areas of skins. --Black Falcon (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused promotional image for "esthetical surgery" (or the nose) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted logo; falsh license André Koehne TALK TO ME 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation

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.

Low resolution, watermark and history of original uploader in Wikipedia indicate that this is a copyright violation. --Karppinen (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Indeed, seems to be taken from some gallery. —Quibik (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

from http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/Albania/South/Vlore/Vlore/photo245663.htm - copyright protected image Albinfo (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per nom. The watermark does not help it either. —Quibik (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 13:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Author's only upload. Wknight94 talk 15:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Author's only upload. Wknight94 talk 15:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Author's only remaining upload. Wknight94 talk 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal image, serves no educational purpose, out of scope malo (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Apparently a rapper? Very low-quality. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Yann: Out of project scope

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.

Out of scope. Drawing of non-existent installation which won't work.

An indication of the level of the creator's sophistication is "Note that the water supply pipes need to have an cumulative equally large diameter as the propeller casing; thus when using 2 water supply pipes the diameter of a single pipe needs to be half that of the casing." If it worked at all, using two pipes, the diameter would need to be 0.707 the diameter of the casing to get the same supply as one pipe the diameter of the casing.

I didn't know this, never calculated it. Thanks for the heads-up.

KVDP (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In small sizes, this is analogous to a water-jet, which are less efficient than open propellers, but use steerable nozzles (rather than a rudder as shown here) to gain superior control and very shallow draft.

Hmm, I thought pump-jets were more efficient giving the notes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump-jet (see advantages and disadvantages), but I trust your correct here. Perhaps the wikipedia article is then best changed

KVDP (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In larger sizes this is comparable to a Kort Nozzle around the propeller, but Korts are relatively short -- a meter or two long at most. A Kort Nozzle provides a significant increase in bollard pull and efficiency at slow speeds, but they are not generally used in vessels faster than about ten knots. They are open front and back and do not have anything like the separate supply pipe shown here.

the supply lines were used to allow the water to enter from around the hull, if it was to be simply a single tube, the hull could obstruct the water flow coming in.

KVDP (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The drawing is not clear as to the source of the water supply for the propeller, but note that friction in the pipes would be considerable, reducing efficiency dramatically. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worried about this too, however giving the wikipedia article I thought output was still higher than open propellers. Also, without an encasing, fish can not be protected from the propellers.
  •  Delete What's next? Encourage grade-school kids to upload their inventions too? Whilst I've no wish to see the WP:NOR constraints of Wikipedia spread to Commons, we ought to maintain some sort of standard of technical credibility, not these childish sketches. A little heads-up on naval architecture to KVDP: it's more difficult than it looks. Square-cornered block diagrams pasted over other's outlines are rarely a practical or illustrative design. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per nom. and Andy. KVPD has repeatedly uploaded useless images containing misinformation, promised to correct the errors/omissions when DR's are made, but then failed to follow through in a timely fashion. I've suggested improvements to KVDP, but have yet to see corrections made, just more errant additions. Confusing the matter further, here, KVDP states that he needs to "post a request at the graphics lab" to get an image corrected, suggesting that his contributions may not be of his own creation. Aside, I concur, regarding the need to clarify the COM:SCOPE-education rules, establishing some sort of "technical accuracy" standard. Misinformation can only educational if it's specifically declared to be so (i.e., in the image description; e.g., propaganda leaflets for historical records, designs that won't work).--E8 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have/make a lot of images, and thus do not have the time to correct them all within in short timeframe. Also, I concur some of my sketches are somewhat childish, but then again they were/are intented to be svg'ed by others anyhow (besides doesn't it give them a personal style ?). As such, the graphical representation isn't of the essence here, it's simply the idea that matters. As for the Biodiesel production image, I did posted it at the graphics lab, but these generally don't produce images all that fast neither, some patience is thus required. As for not being my own creation, the image you mention definitly is my own creation, it's even not based on any image I saw. Finally, for the image descriptions, I don't mind if my descriptions are somewhat modified to make it clear that it's a concept, made only by me. You can also add templates.

KVDP (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope as per above. Yann (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Drawing of non-existent, impossible ship.

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Propeller-cased ship without hydrofoils.PNG for basic argument.

This fantasy adds the impossibility of constructing the rudder and propeller as located. As drawn, the entire thrust required to propel the ship must be transmitted by the boom (2) which is ~10 meters long.

Also the two booms (propeller and rudder) increase the draft of the ship by a factor of three. Generally draft is the limiting factor in the size of a ship that is used on a particular route, so that would be an impossible constraint. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Farcical. Given the size of the superstructure as drawn, this ship is around 10,000 tons minimum. So sticking a couple of foils on the bottom won't make it into a hydrofoil. Your guess between failure to reach planing speed, foil failure or even hull failure as it breaches is as good as mine, subject of course to the availability of super-nucular propellor engines and pixie dust. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope -- misleading -- no educational value.

The following statements in the caption are not correct in whole or part:

  • Decks above the waterline do not need bulkheads
  • The deck at the waterline should always be watertight
  • Sleeping quarters are best placed on the first deck above the waterline
  • So too the galley as well as other vital rooms ...
  • engine... liquid nitrogen powered

The drawing shows a strange rudder mounting that won't work. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rudder mounting was taken over from the original image, an internal combustion engines can simply be fueled by liquid nitrogen (aldough it's not common practice), as for the others, these are simply the way on how I would functionalise the vessel compartments, ie sleeping quarters are placed above the waterline to prevent accidents (flooding of compartments while sleeping), ...

KVDP (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use. If this stays on Commons under some lax "Creative freedom is permitted" policy then that's one thing, but it's no reason to pretend that it's useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed it from en:Ship floodability. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. An image this inaccurate has no place on Wikipedia, and I don't believe it has a place on Commons either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image can be improved with a next version.

KVDP (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've often claimed that you'll improve your images "in the next version". However you've so far failed to demonstrate this - one that repeated the previous error, one that was made worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is his right, as a Wikipedia editor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The fact that this and others below are in use is what's scary -- that makes deletion more important, not less. Come on Pieter -- you're a physicist. Can you imagine a liquid nitrogen powered engine? Think about the combustion by-products.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See [1], it seems that you simply discard my suggestions without digging any further on wikipedia ?

KVDP (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to believe what you read on Wikipedia: as this image demonstrates, all sorts of errors get posted on there.
As far as cryogenic LN2 engines go, they're pie in the sky for cars, even less credible for ships of this size, especially for ships that are otherwise being represented as contemporary construction. As an indication of some of the issues involved, I suggest looking at bulk LNG carriers. These carry vast quantities of liquefied natural gas at low temperatures and use the resultant boil-off as a propulsion fuel. Even there, where the fuel is easily combustible, the engineering is staggering. For a non-reactive "cryo fuel" like LN2, you're just off the radar.Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am flabbargasted by an administrator saying this. Administrators on Commons are not supercensors for all of the wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KVDP (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope as per above. Yann (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Super-low-resolution black-and-white picture of something - a guy at a gasoline pump maybe? Or an ATM? Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Apparently a bunch of guys in face paint. Black metal musicians maybe? Too low-quality to tell. If it's a well-known band, it's probably a copyvio. Wknight94 talk 16:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused strange image - unused and unusable - out of scope (missing context, unidentified) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

product promotion, out of scope malo (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see how this picture can decently be of educational interest. Eusebius (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I see no harm in keeping this image. It's nothing spectacular, but has some illustrative value in Category:Chapeltown, Leeds. —Quibik (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Not a QI, but it's categorized and has its place on Commons. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Cannot you think for yourself? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It does match the PD-text. Pieter, please relax. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SPAM, ad/promotional image by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - out of scope - the draft this was uploaded for was blanked as an advert in 2010. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

No educational interest: no clear subject, bad quality. Used only on a user gallery. Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I fail to see how this can be of educational interest:

--Eusebius (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Awkwardly tight framing in all of the images. Not too useful. —Quibik (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Tuff one. On one hand I agree. But on the other hand userpage images are allowed and if we delete we will "ruin" this users gallery (37 images in gallery in total). --MGA73 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if they're uploaded just to make a user gallery, isn't that using the WMF projects as a free hosting website? The scope policy says "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." I'm not pushing violently towards deletion, these images are not harmful, but I truly think they're out of scope. --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Quality is too bad --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused image, replaced by [[::File:Flag of Tottori Prefecture.svg]] which matches prefectural law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, if the SVG matches the real flag better, which I presume it does. —Quibik (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work. Madame Tussaud's is not a public place, FOP doesn't apply. Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly logo - Uploader is not image source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If the uploader doesn't represent Zunco Accesorios, he isn't in a position to license their logo under the GFDL/cc-by-sa-all license. —RP88 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this copyrightable in Colombia? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking if this meets the threshold of originality necessary to qualify for copyright under Columbian copyright law (Congreso de la República Ley Número 23 de 1982)? I did a quick search. I can't find any evidence that it does not. —RP88 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Non-free logo, license is probably fake. —Quibik (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. That doesn't really mean anything, the enwiki version is simply mistagged. This image fits well under PD-textlogo. I tagged the enwiki version for deletion instead. —Quibik (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. The google logo is considered pd-textlogo, see for instance Commons:Deletion requests/File:Googlelogo de.gif. A simple "tv" obviously adds nothing to that. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free , Clearly logo and NOT own work as claimed by uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Has a non-text component. Would qualify for PD-textlogo, if cropped, though. —Quibik (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Uploader is not the author, and the non-text part is eligible for copyright. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki Duplicate tagged as non-free - Clearly logo and NOT own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free , Clearly Logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Non-trivial logo. OTRS did not work out either, it seems. Delete File:Bputlogo.JPG as well. —Quibik (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grammatical error in the title. The content was moved to Category:Businesspeople from Ukraine --Amakuha (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep No grammatical error; whether or not Ukraine needs a "the" is not established fact in English, though current usage is tending towards without. Change it to a category redirect instead of deleting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. made cat redirect per Prosfilaes      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No permission and out of COM:SCOPE. Orphaned personal photo with no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I doubt that anyone can have taken this photo by his own except if he works for Sukhoi or the russian army. So the uploader cannot put the image in public domain by himself. I cannot find the original picture but for me it is a copyvio (this photo appears on this forum with a source I cannot confirmed but the fact is on this photo tere is no watermark). --Duch.seb (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Derivative works from Guitar Hero artwork. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused GIF image, replaced by either a PNG file or by File:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terrible quality, several better images depicting the fountains here --ZooFari 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a logo owned by European Broadcasting Union (EBU) for Eurovision Song Contest 2011.It is not ineligible for copyright. 80.187.97.233 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This logo requires a FUR for usage. Textlogo cannot apply for any original designed font as this logo shows, consequently it meets the threshold of creativity required for copyright. (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the United States, PD-textlogo absolutely includes any original designed font; the U.S. does not recognize any copyright on *typeface* in all its forms (including, for example, Chinese calligraphy). Deletions to the contrary are completely mistaken. Second, the threshold of originality for Germany logos is way, way higher than the U.S. -- see Threshold of originality#Germany. This one is not even close to the borderline to me.  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However what I see in this logo is neither a true typeface that could be re-used elsewhere or just simple geometric shapes, in particular the "V" as a heart is a unique design that does not fit either category. To be fair, I would consider this a marginal case (hence I raised it for discussion rather than speedy deletion) and comparison with other cases on Commons might be helpful; should anyone have some key examples to hand. I also regret my nomination wording, I had my UK "hat" on at the time. -- (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read it as letters, it is typeface. Hand-drawn Chinese calligraphy is also considered "typeface" in the U.S. A heart is a common symbol; and that is quite arguably a "minor variation". Courts have refused copyright on a particular version of a fleur-de-lys before, as it was a variation on a common symbol. Threshold of originality#United States has some examples (including one with a heart). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the example of File:Luv Sailor.JPG is not on the basis of PD-textlogo but that it was composed of non-original material as so is not useful as a comparison. In all the other examples shown in Threshold of originality, the nearest match would be File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg and a similar case could be made here, though I would appreciate opinions from those that know more about copyright in Germany. I would also like to confirm that only German copyright law applies for this Eurovision Song Contest image. -- (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:NY Arrows logo.png is also hand-drawn; that was ruled uncopyrightable. Drawing a basic heart is similarly not really a creative act and I don't think would qualify (or really come close) under U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is US copyright relevant? I would have thought that copyright for this image is held in Germany. -- (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "free in the U.S. and in the country of origin" policy... the U.S. part is haphazardly enforced but it is sometimes. ;-) As for Germany, given the logos which have not passed their threshold of originality, this one isn't remotely a concern there. I think they are one of the countries which do not like to have copyright and trademark (or maybe it is industrial design) overlap. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also included are File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png and File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg. Yann (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png I would say would definitely be copyrightable in the U.S. (maybe even Germany); I think that should be deleted. File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg is more borderline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an ongoing confusion about which copyright law applies here. As I understand it, only German copyright is relevant as that is the country of publication. If the images listed here are uncopyright-able under German law, then as the country of the publisher that should be all that matters. The alternative is that we have to review copyright definitions for every country for which copyright exists, including the US. -- (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons policy (see Commons:Licensing) is that works need to be OK both in their country of origin (publication), and also specifically in the U.S. (not *all* countries). The Foundation as a U.S. institution can be directly sued in the U.S., even if protection does not exist or has expired in the source country. Admittedly, enforcement of the U.S. side of things is not often done (particularly for works which have *expired* in the source country; we have the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag while we come to some determination on that). I feel it is more dangerous to keep these modern works which do exceed the U.S. threshold of originality, even if they don't in their country of origin. If the Foundation got a DMCA takedown request they would definitely delete them, without warning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your feelings, however if the worst that could happen would be the Foundation might respond to a takedown request (that presumably would have to come from the same German organization that freely published the material on the Internet under German law without expecting any benefit from copyright protection and so no financial loss could be involved) by removing the images, then labelling this as "dangerous" seems to be overstating the case. -- (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and any usages on local wikipedias where it may have been OK would be gone. If we want to keep on those grounds, I would suggest not deleting the pictures from the German wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including File:ESC 2011 logo.PNG which is similar to the others added above. CT Cooper · talk 17:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that one is also (easily) copyrightable in the U.S., and I would be surprised if it wasn't in Germany, but I have less feel for that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. IMO, This logo requires a FUR for usage. Textlogo cannot apply for any original designed font as this logo shows, consequently it meets the threshold of creativity required for copyright. is doubtless. It's not plain background+text logo but quite complicated and original design. Masur (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect; textlogo can indeed apply to originally designed fonts. That is definitely the case in the U.S. And Germany appears to have a pretty high threshold when it comes to logos. Some of the ones mentioned above have an intricate bit of heart-based artwork alongside the textual part; those go (way) over the line for me, but the main nominated one does not (and I don't think it's all that close, even, if Germany is the country of origin). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - obvious case of PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked the fact that some files were added to this nomination. I will deal with them now:
I also agree with the deletion of File:ESC 2011 logo.PNG by another admin. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It is copyrighted by EBU. A license tag at local file at enwiki had a FUR and license tag "Non-free logo", so it is copyrighted and not PD-textlogo. --Phanuruch8555 (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - Per previous debate and my rationale for keeping previously, which has not been refuted. If individuals decide to upload logos as non-free on the English Wikipedia to be on the safe side, then that has no consequence to the copyright status of files on Commons, and some more complex logos upload over there do meet the threshold of originality, however ones like this do not. CT Cooper · talk 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept - DR shows lack of understanding of {{PD-textlogo}} - no need to go on with this - Jcb (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not free, it's an advert for a festival - Zil (d) 19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not free, this is a cartoon design in 2007 - Zil (d) 19:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Free, this is a cartoon designed in 2007. - Zil (d) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Free, this is a cartoon designed in 2007. - Zil (d) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Free, this is a cartoon designed in 2007. And this is a logo. - Zil (d) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a scan of a newspaper. No Author. recent 1957. Unfree. - Zil (d) 19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused strange private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused promotional image for estetical surgery "rinolook" (latin american noses.... :) ) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

band promo, out of scope malo (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence that the uploader is the copyright owner, as the editor's two other uploads turned out to be copyrighted to other parties. Also, the size, resolution and border, not to mention the watermark in the top left corner, suggest this is a media photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enwiki duplicate tagged as Non-free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Please exercise some judgement of your own. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure, but I'd say  Delete. Looks like copyrighted software screenshot to me. —Quibik (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you would consider to be possibly copyrighted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I know, Google's websites in general are covered by copyright and so would be the screenshots of them. (Screenshots in en:Google Search are tagged as non-free for example. On the other hand we have Category:Google screenshots as well...) In this case though, there is very little original content and I guess you might suggest that it falls into PD due to being too trivial. —Quibik (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<insertion>Generally, the output of a copyrighted computer program is not considered to be copyrighted too, at least not to the creator of the computer program (but maybe to whoever provided the input data). Otherwise, all documents written in MS Word would be copyright protected by Microsoft, which is obviously not the case. So the search result of a google search is not protectable by google. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full output of many programs contains copyrighted material independent of the user; logos, text strings, etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but is not the case here. Simple text strings (such as menu or dialog items) or toolbar buttons and generic UI elements are often also not copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. It looks like a Google search result to me, but cannot pin down the actual Google software. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Google Trends. —Quibik (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep There's nothing copyrightable here. Mere text output of a computer program is not copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep wha? In any case, I don't see anything copyrightable there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Too simple to be a problem. MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No author, uncategorized, reproduces copyrighted (Google) content Quadell (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. --High Contrast (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

lack of source means the numbers given are not verifable thus the image is useless Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Keep I agree that this is a problem, but I would still keep it, as it's a good diagram. Perhaps a source can be found for these numbers? The same goes for most of the images in Category:Persistent carbenes. —Quibik (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Maybe there was additional detail in the .jpg file on enwp; anyway, should be easy enough to find. Go, do a search instead of deleting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It is (still) in use. Feel free to nominate again once image is unused. Perhaps talk to the author first? MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This photo is not trivial, it contains the non-trivial image, located on the stone or on the wall. Dinamik (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The license is not correct, but could {{PD-art}} perhaps cover it? —Quibik (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. This is 3D and therefore PD-art is not relevant. If uploader has taken the photo we can undelete. MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Licensing information is very messy, the {{Free screenshot}} tag makes me suspect it's a copyvio. Quibik (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. No good source and no author. MGA73 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a recent sculpture. There is no FOP in Russia, therefore it's a copyvio. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Sdobnikov A. (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright on the statue carries over to pictures of it, so it's not legal to take pictures of the statues and publish them. (Many countries have exceptions to the general rule, called freedom of panorama (apparently only by us?), here abbreviated FOP, but Russia doesn't.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Masur (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too low quality to be useful and unclear licensing. Quibik (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is in use... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Same file on enwiki was deleted there [2] "19:23, 9 July 2006 AmiDaniel (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Domingos Pereira.jpg" ‎ (Image with unknown source as of 30 June 2006)". We have no information about author or date it was taken. --MGA73 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Missing essential information: source and/or license: No source since 4 April 2010

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.

No source given, own work status is doubtful. ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete If the image was scanned by the uploader, then I think it would probably be of much better quality. Also, http://hassanmutlak.blogspot.com/ uses the image in several places, if that means anything. —Quibik (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per COM:FOP#Argentina. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Outdated raster graphic. No usage. Verwolff (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Would need to be updated and SVG would be more appropriate. —Quibik (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a recent sculpture. There is no FOP in Russia, therefore this is a copyvio of the sculptor's copyright. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of PD status Eusebius (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In en wiki, the file has PD-UK tag which says that this image was created and is now in the public domain in the United Kingdom, because its term of copyright has expired. This doesn't help? Sreejithk2000 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Identification of the author, or proof that first publication was anonymous, is needed to support this claim (the author must have died before 1939, or the picture must have been first published anonymously before 1939). We have no information whatsoever about this picture. Unfortunately the source link leads only to the jpg itself, with no context: maybe another one can be found, with an author or a date? --Eusebius (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page in the specified website which has the image. Sir Douglas Bader at Probert Encyclopaedia. This file is also used in multiple websites. [3], [4]], [5], [6], [7], etc just to name a few. Sreejithk2000 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only info available on this webpage is a copyright notice, which is unlikely to apply to the photograph though. Since the subject was born in 1910 and looks at least 30 on the picture, it is very very doubtful that the photographer died before 1939. There's no way we can safely assume a public domain status.  Delete. --Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Absurd, out of scope, no educational value, hand drawn map I take issue with

  • The heading is always expressed in degrees to the true north. [not unless you're using a gyro-compass]
  • Note that on sailboats, the heading to the true north is only used by the navigator. [no]
  • Course 90° [should be course 090°]
  • POO and POD? [Never heard of these]
  • And, he didn't even bother to get a 090° course horizontal across the page. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep There isn't another image at the linked article. Aldough I concur on some points (ie course isn't 90°, ... this will be fixed when a new image is made (in svg). As for the other issues: 1 + 2 don't make much sense. Number 3 is correct, indeed 090° is also used, but I fail to see why 90° can't also be used (I even find it clearer). Finally POO and POD indeed aren't really common, but I find the alternatives even allot less difficult to comprehend (especially for non-sailors)

KVDP (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your points:
  1. "The heading is always expressed in degrees to the true north" -- Actual navigation may be done in degrees true or degrees magnetic (the practice varies from place to place). The course used to steer the boat will be in degrees magnetic if the device displaying the course is an actual compass or an electronic compass set for magnetic. It will be degrees true if it is a gyro compass, satellite compass, or electronic compass set to show degrees true. So "always" is simply not correct -- even "usually" is not correct in small boats.
  2. "Note that on sailboats, the heading to the true north is only used by the navigator" -- Unless the vessel is hard on the wind, again, the course used to steer the boat will be as described in #1 -- not a course relative to the wind. Even when hard on the wind, the desired course will be given to the person at the helm, who may then choose which tack to be on.
  3. Courses are always expressed in three digits and always spoken as "zero nine zero", not "ninety" to avoid confusion with "nineteen". This may be different in other languages.
  4. "POO and POD indeed aren't really common" speaks for itself. It doesn't really matter that you find the alternatives difficult -- trying to introduce new terminology into a field that already suffers from differences in terminology between English and American usage is a terrible idea.

This is simply one more example of your drawing a diagram based on a poor understanding of the practice and terminology in a particular field. If you correct all the errors and resubmit, fine, but you have made that promise before. For now, this is unusable and misleading.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. No longer in use. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Masur (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

School logo/CoA. Why would this be a government work (needed for the current license) Lokal_Profil 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Perhaps we need some clarification of the licenses situation here. We have other schools logos here on Commons. As noted above, although founded in the 16th century as a grammar school this is a state school. Logo is used on both the Welsh and English articles about the school. I'll save the file so that if need be we can use it locally under Fair Use but it would be a pity to see it go without good reason. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, not produced by the government and no author/date of first publication. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a scan. Körnerbrötchen » 11:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The uploader could still be the original author, even if scanned. —Quibik (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't think that is very supposably. I'll simply ask the uploader. Körnerbrötchen » 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, very likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Absurd, out of scope, drawing out of someone's imagination. No educational value.

  • Ships going from the USA to Europe do not stop at Bermuda or the Azores, they follow a great circle route well to the north of both
  • The route west from the Panama Canal is largely a great circle route to the north to China and Japan. Some traffic goes to Australia and New Zealand, but it is much less important and it, too, is a great circle, not island hopping.
  • The route east from Suez/Bab el Mandeb goes through the Malacca Strait, not the Sunda Strait, for reasons of distance. It certainly doesn't go to the Seychelles.
  • The map ignores some of the largest destinations --
 Keep I took over the image in the mentioned book almost exactly. Thus, if you say the routes here are faulty, you also state that the routes in the book are faulty drawn. Also, I find it hard to believe that the routes would disregard much stop-overs, as you state, stop-overs are indeed necessairy for stocking up on supplies, repairs to the boat, general safety, ...

KVDP (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Sourced; description should point out that these are not modern commercial shipping lanes, but routes for sailers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A yacht sailing from New York to Western Europe is not unlikely to take a route via Bermuda and the Canary Islands. Not because it is fastest, but it is more fun that way. Also for stocking up on water, food and other supplies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many Atlantic crossings have you made, Pieter? I've done two, both east to west, from the Azores to Boston, one under sail (the last leg of a circumnavigation), the other under power. The Bermuda/Azores High sits between the two and produces a large area with no wind. That's great if you're motoring, but not good if you're sailing in either direction.

A yacht sailing from New York to Western Europe from May to September will sail east, taking into account

  • that it is shorter if you go north and follow a great circle
  • that there may be icebergs if you go north
  • that you will probably get wind in the right direction if you stay a little south, as the lows will go north of you.
  • going south of 38N will get you too close to the high

As for going west to east to the Canaries, it would be a long hard slog. The Canaries sit in the trade winds and you'd be tacking all the way.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this isn't the place to boast about personal experience. I also have a International certificate of Competence on boating, but I don't even mention this in my curriculum vitae on my blogs ... Instead, this is about making a general good image. Also, the image is probably best conceived as an image both useable for motor boats as sailing boats. Also, you don't take into account the cities that it connects, some routes are there simply because they connect valuable trade centres.

KVDP (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete. It's missing major shipping routes (all the routes from Japan, all the routes from the Persian Gulf, all the routes from the US west coast), it shows routes that don't exist (Bermuda is not a major stop on shipping routes), it shows routes that can't exist (a canal route from New Orleans to Hampton Roads?), and it's got errors of geography (Tahiti in the Carribean?). If the image is an accurate reflection of the source, it throws the reliability of that source into doubt. --Carnildo (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Misleading. This is not a map of shipping lanes. It is a 'map of my idea of what some shipping lanes could be, perhaps' and as such it is out of scope. Commons is not a personal web space. Globbet (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope as per above. Yann (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The deletion was reverted with undeletion, the reason for undeletion was usage in Wikipedia nl:Zeeroute. I argue against this undeletion because the usage isnt very good. The caption of the usage was "Moderne zeeroutes" - thats already wrong and based on the missleading and wrong file title. The map is derived from a book for amateur sailors. It does not show "modern shipping lanes", the title is complete nonsense! For my next travel I will take the yellow sea lane across the united states.... little joke. The illustration is incomplete and inacurrate, maybe it fits the purpose to illustrate searoutes crossing the searoutes taken by amateur sailors?? There are so many better sources around, it just take me minutes to find:

And we use a map from an amateur sailing book and realy belive it is in any way usuable to educationally illustrate international trade routes? Correct the description and title to remove all the misleading information or delete it. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the book, but considering the quality and accuracy of the uploader's other images, I seriously doubt that the image is an accurate reflection of the information in the book. Unless someone can verify that it is accurate, this map should be deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda feel guilty about calling for delete on someone's own work that they spent time on, but as people have said, its apparently not particularly correct, even if you consider it as a sailing route map only. Ingolfson (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, but renamed. Kameraad Pjotr 12:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many of the numbered call-outs are wrong. Somehow there's a magic box (9) that produces steam (10-12) from heated water (7-8). Misleading, no educational value. Also possible copyvio as uploader admits that it was copied from the source. --     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not a copyvio; just edit the description with the numbers in the infobox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Some sort of voodoo science is at work here. Drawing a box and calling it an "energy maker" or a "pollution remover" doesn't make it so, and that's all the level these diagrams are working at. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep the "magic box" you're referring to is simply a firebox, there's in fact an image that exists on commons that shows the workings of this (I also made an improvement on this, but it was reverted to an older (incorrect) version, the older version can still be viewed dough trough the current version. As for the copyviolation, I think you best look into the specifics of this: it's never a violition if the image was redrawn based on a copyrighted image. As for the terms, I only sometimes use different naming, if I find that it is required for the drawing (and even then I try to stick close to official names). In any other case, I will use the official term.

KVDP (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that your "#9 firebox" is taken from the BBC diagram that you link to, then you've significantly failed to understand their diagram. The component they illustrate is a condenser, to improve the efficiency of the turbine by allowing it to work into a lower outlet pressure (this is hundred-year-old common practice for steam turbines). You might also note that it's only connected to the turbine's exhaust outlet (and its cooling water supply), not as you show it through both the turbine inlet and exhaust.
This component is the antithesis of a firebox. If you label it as one, or claim the function of one (i.e. adding energy to the steam), then you've hopelessly confused the function of the entire diagram and made it beyond useful value.
This diagram could be a useful addition to Commons and to Wikipedia - it's a new combustion technology worthy of coverage on both. It's not beyond a few small corrections to fix it either, unlike some other diagrams under discussion at present. However these fixes would be little more than moving it back to resembling the BBC source diagram. As the editor has so far demonstrated an utter disregard for sources or following their subtleties, I'm as yet unconvinced this is possible (please, prove me wrong). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll fix it to the original soon; I do need some extra info though. As I understand it, a steam condenser simply condenses steam to water (see http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/steam+condenser ), and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Surface_Condenser.png . So I'm wondering whether
  • a firebox isn't more suitable then a condenser, especially since I would think that a firebox has a higher efficiency (condensing steam to water can't be more efficient than using the heated steam to directly drive the turbine ?; it's btw allot more difficult to set up too) Also, wouldn't a condenser be used in combination with a firebox (ie to simply increase efficiency, rather then generate all the power) ? At the end of the schematic (nr 17), there already is a condenser.
  • I'm puzzled about the piping; as I understand it, the water to make the steam comes in at 8 and the steam goes to the condenser at 7, however as I see it 8 would need to be disconnected from 9 and come in seperatly, rather then being connected to the condenser.

KVDP (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

turbine steam flow
  • <sigh> You can't just play with the diagrams like this. Either copy them accurately, or else understand some moderately sophisticated thermodynamics beforehand and then invent a new device as WP:OR. There's no middle ground. If you change "condenser" to "firebox" because you merely think that "condensing steam to water can't be more efficient than using the heated steam to directly drive the turbine ?" (which is needless to say, wrong), then you're just playing at stacking building blocks because they look good, not architecting anything.
I attach the simplest steam turbine schematic I have to hand. Hot, high-pressure steam flows into a high-pressure turbine, then a low-pressure turbine, then into a condenser, then is returned to the feedwater system. Any textbook will explain the details and although it's far from simple to analyse with hard numbers, the block diagram is pretty simple and consistent. There is a large efficiency saving to be had by working turbines against the lowest possible exhaust pressure, i.e. the vacuum generated by a condenser. This isn't just true of turbines - it's one of the most significant characteristics of the Cornish engine too, and for just the same thermodyanmic reason.
Either accept the skill, knowledge and experience of a hundred years of steam engineers, or else tell them that they're doing it wrong and invent your own way. But if you do that, you'd best learn to be good at it beforehand. For every Tesla, there are a thousand Ludwig Plutoniums. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the meaning of the original and your modified diagram, yes of course there has to be a firebox, and there already is one. It's the big thing in the middle with the flames drawn on it and a fuel inlet. Inside the boiler casing above the fire is gridiron-like tubular boiler, which takes cold inlet water (#8) and heats it to produce steam (#7). This steam (in the BBC version) then drives the turbine. The turbine outlet (BBC version) then passes through a condenser before being recycled to the boiler. Although this might appear to be simply a way of saving water by recycling (as indeed it was on some steam cars), its function on a large power plant (stationary power station or ship) is to improve turbine efficiency by allowing the turbine to work against a lower exhaust pressure. Any more understanding than this requires some study of steam indicator diagrams. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the image based on your suggestions. BTW I should of atleast known that the firebox was 6, 7 and 8. Sorry about this. Thanks for the new info regarding the workings of the steam condensor.

KVDP (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept, it seems that the original problems were addressed. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]