Commons:Undeletion requests

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

76 copyvios • 2 duplicates • 24 adverts • 94 selfies • 29 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

• You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
• If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
• If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
• If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use

* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

• Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
• Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
• In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
• Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
• State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
• Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: to see if they can assist. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow and Swiãtopôłk: My apologies. Somehow I missed the notification. I will look at this tomorrow and get back to you. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've temporarily undeleted the file to help this discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Abzeronow. The justification for the deletion was that it is "copyvio – found elsewhere", with a link to where it was found. The flag is going to be found/ seen elsewhere because it is widely used by the movement for independence of the Lunda-Cokwe (one of a number of spellings in Portuguese) Lunda-Chokwe (in English) people as one of their symbols. For background, they are considered a separatist movement by some, a term that the Lunda-Chokwe reject, as they do not see themselves as part of Angola, as they maintain that because at one point Portugal had conferred on their region/ Lunda Kingdom the status of protectorate (Protectorate of Lunda Chokwe), they should not have later been lumped together with the rest of Angola as a unitary country (the same argument is used by the Cabinda independence (separatist movements). Their leaders and activists are imprisoned or routinely arrested, cited here, under "Arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment" and more recent news here (in English). A number of court cases are ongoing (in Portuguese). Use of the flag can be seen here (in Portuguese) in an article by Voice of America (VoA) Portuguese Africa service, which is a fairly reliable source when it comes to matters Angolan. Here is another (in Portuguese), this time from the Portuguese Catholic Church broadcaster, Rádio Renascença. Hope this helps. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Yes, but I need to know if Lunda-Chokwe has a copyright on this flag or if the lusona depicted is actually a public domain symbol or a copyrightable expression of traditional learning. I'd also appreciate it if we had a better idea of what the threshold of originality is in Angola. I agree with you that this is within scope, I need to know if the flag is public domain or not. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.

Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.

Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.

I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Jost has opened a new request below so we may as well close this one. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[2]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

support restoration. ltbdl (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Candidplatz - Flickr - iEiEi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Candidplatz Subway Station Munich.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 02 810000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 10 378000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Bahnsteig).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Farbgestaltung).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.

Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Also

• File:Kloster-Garnstock Seitenaltar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Del Req)

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Exemple d'une tunisienne qui fait une pipe sans préservatif.png

The community have voted to keep this photo once and yet Yann decided to SD it without any community consensus

If Yann wants the photo gone it should be done through a proper DR---Trade (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral I agree that the deletion was out of process, but I also can see Yann's viewpoint here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

We also have to take into consideration of the viewpoint from people other than Yann. We cant do that with the file gone Trade (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

We should also be sensitive to the people depicted in our media. Given the uploader's apparent disregard of consent, I'm not sure if we can in good faith accept that the woman consented to this photograph being published. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what the DR were to discuss Trade (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Why do you think that the photo is in scope and should be here? Out-of-process deletion is not a sufficient reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Not wanting to follow the process is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Trade (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that the girl is quite recognisable, there should be an attestation of her consent to be published in that position. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Given recent discussion elsewhere, I looked. Yes, I'd say that the reasons to delete this are clear: a readily identifiable person performing a sex act in a private place; point of view suggests that the man in question is the photographer, so not a situation where it's at all obvious she knew that photo was going to be re-shown at all, let alone free-licensed. Subject's consent for publication is not at all obvious. And, frankly, the user's other uploads don't increase my confidence.

The basis on which this was kept earlier was unrelated to this; apparently no one thought to raise these issues at the time of the DR. I think the deletion showed good judgement. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

Das Bundesarchiv Abteilung Deutsches Reich hat mir mit E-mail vom 27. März 2025 auf meine Frage, welche Urheberrechte im Zusammenhang mit Verbandsabzeichen der Wehrmacht - hier Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - folgenden Text geschrieben: "Die ehemalige deutsche Wehrmacht hat unserer Kenntnis nach keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Die durch sie erlassenen Vorschriften, Erlasse und Befehle sind mittlerweile Schriftgut des Bundesarchivs und unterliegen dem Bundesarchivgesetz. Personenbezogene oder zeitliche Schutzfristen bestehen für die Art Schriftgut nicht."

Da die Verbandsabzeichen nicht willkürlich verwendet werden konnten, sondern auf Grundlage übergeordneter Stäbe genehmigt und angeordnet wurden, bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der gelöschten Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - 1.GD, 3.GD und 4. GD - unter der Lizenz "gemeinfrei". --Jost (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This information could have been shared in the still opened but stalled UDR of this file. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Regardless if Bundesarchiv feels Wehrmacht insignia are public domain, they should contact COM:VRT so this information is on file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That actually says nothing about the copyright situation of the insignia. They're writing about "Schutzfristen", a kind of waiting period before archives can allow access to files to protect interests of people who might still be alive or died recently. So nothing to do with copyright. They probably didn't even understand the problem we have here. Which is understandable, because they are archivists, not jurists, and normally wouldn't bother with copyright at all. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Rosenzweig. From my perspective, the question is more about TOO. Gnom (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Carlos Donoso y sus muñecos.png

I spoke with both the photographer and his son at the time (the image is part of a family photo). The puppets were crafted by the same person who appears in the image, and he personally granted the usage rights. The logistics were somewhat complex, as it required explaining to the son (who uploaded the image to Commons on behalf of the author) how to do it properly and guiding him through the site's policies. This is a well-known individual who has a Wikipedia article. I strongly recommend the restoration of this image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wilfredor, in the case of o photo of an artwork, we need permission from both the artist and the photographer. Can you ask them both to send a permission to the support team, via [email protected]? They can use Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator to create their permission mail. – Having received the proper permissions, the support team can successfully demand restauration. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in that time the person passed away Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wilfredor, that is really sad. Are there heirs who can take over the baton? The son? Mussklprozz (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Es war derselbe Sohn, der das Foto gemacht und hochgeladen hat. Ich habe seit drei Jahren keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm, da ich ihn nur speziell für dieses Foto kontaktiert habe. Es handelt sich um sehr bekannte Personen, die schwer erreichbar sind. Da er das Bild selbst unter der richtigen Lizenz hochgeladen hat, halte ich es für überflüssig und bürokratisch, ihn zusätzlich um eine schriftliche Bestätigung per E-Mail zu bitten Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Question en que año publicaron la fotografía?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Translation for English speaking admins: It was the same son who took the photo and uploaded it. I haven't had any contact with him for three years, as I only contacted him specifically for this photo. The people in question are very well known and difficult to reach. Since he uploaded the picture himself under the correct licence, I think it would be superfluous and bureaucratic to ask him for additional written confirmation by email. Mussklprozz (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can some admin please temporarily undelete the image? I would like to check the file description and history. If I find it okay, i think we can accept Wilfredor's argument above. I would write an artwork template in connection with a heirs-license into the file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mussklprozz/Yann, for taking on this case and I really appreciate it! 🙏 Just a quick heads-up, I noticed that the image had been deleted when I checked my restored version and saw that the source link was showing up in red. Wilfredor (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support I think the arguments of User:Wilfredor are legit, but the VRT ticket granting the permission will be ideal --Ezarateesteban 21:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Ezarate for take a look Wilfredor (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Supposed duplicates

• File:Советский проспект, 115, Ульяновка, ЛО 05.jpg (del) -> File:Советский проспект, 115, Ульяновка, ЛО 03.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 18.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 17.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 13.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 10.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 12.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 09.jpg

Túrelio deleted them by suggestion of OptimusPrimeBot. I asked him to show me the files, because I check what I upload and so many duplicates seem like not my mistake. He says that bot can not be mistaken, but I also know that I regularly get mistakes during uploading; I didn't pay too much attention, but maybe it is related. So I suggest that something happens during uploading -> problems with metadata -> problems with OptimusPrimeBot (I am sorry for 'something', I will pay more attention and will use phabricator after the next uploading). Please, take a look. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I had the 1st file already undeleted, as an example. It is clearly a duplicate of the paired file. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the 1st. Did you recheck others? Анастасия Львова^ru/en 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Js13kgames.png Js13kGames Logo

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has

"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."

That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:20240129223716!Rammasun 2014 path.png

New to wikipedia here i just wanted to undelete my file i uploaded to commons, i decided o delete it because i was struggling with the license and uwlsubst,thanks --Pixtuqq (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pixtuqq: What is the source of the background map? Yann (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

2006 LN6 created the path and was reverted back to the track again and the comment who reverted it back said upload it in another file, BUT THAT WAS IN JANUARY 2024!! So i decied to upload it in a separate file and credited the original user who made the path Pixtuqq (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

i created a new similar file with proper credits so dont undelete it Pixtuqq (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose In one day, User:Pixtuqq created this file, modified it, and then added a DR, saying "I HATE THIS FILE I CREATED I HOPE IT GETS DELETED". Yann deleted it, and now, two days later, Pixtuqq wants it restored. I think we have better things to do than play this kind of games. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

im sorry, i was being a dumb**** at that time Pixtuqq (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim, and no answer about the background map. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Anne Bessette 2022.png

Bonjour, j'avais mis ces images issues de conférences scientifiques en ligne à la suite de plusieurs demandes de journalistes qui voulaient les utiliser pour des articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annebessette (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose First, the two uploads are claimed to be {{Own}} work, but they do not look like selfies, so I suspect that they are copyright violations. Second, except for two images, both deleted, this editor has made no contributions here. Commons is not a web host, so the purpose stated above for the uploads is not allowed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Old Sepahan Logo.png

با سلام لوگوی بارگذاری شده باز طراحی اینجانب میباشد و بنده لوگو را از روی یک ویدئو طراحی نمودم و کاملا اثر شخصی بنده میباشد.

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• It is in the public domain if it was published before 1995 (1375 SH). I was also unable to find any information about the logo. Hanooz 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Hasan Alp Güngör, 2020 yılında Na'Vi Forması ile.jpg

Hasan Alp Güngör, 2020 yılında Na'Vi formasıyla

Bu fotoğraf şahsıma aittir ve telif hakkı sahibiyim. CC-BY-SA 4.0 lisansı ile paylaşıyorum. Lütfen silmeyiniz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasjackson25 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ночной Новоалтайск.jpg

This file was (most likely) made by the uploader himself using his phone camera -- it contains the original metadata, and the reverse image search didn't return any results for me. The reason for deletion was ostensibly "not having a licence tag", added by UCinternational, even though there was a licence tag on the file. I contested the original warning, but the file was deleted anyway. I propose that the file should be restored. Le Loy (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for having no license, despite at all times having a license tag. If the license is disputed, a deletion request should be initiated. Thuresson (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. The uploader, User:Mikhail2710, is copyvio recidivist. "Own work" statement by Mikhail2710 is completely unreliable. UCinternational (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Info I tagged the file as no source, not no license. The premise of this undeletion request has collapsed. UCinternational (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, this image is so dark that it is unusable for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Speculative restoration of Siamosaurus suteethorni based on the tooth from Sao Khua Formation.png and File:Garudapfossil.jpg

Good to see User_talk:DinoThaiThai_Chatchy. The removal was unjustified. These images were deleted due to copyvio templates by User:shizhao. However, the website link provided as evidence of copyvio is invalid as it was added after the images were uploaded. First image was already used in 2022,[3] but the link shizhao proposed was from 2023.[4] Second image os uploaded in March 31st,[5] website they proposed is from April 3rd.[6] Therefore, I believe the removal of these images was unjustified and they can be reinstated. There is a testimony on the talk page from uploader DinoThaiThai Chatchy, but if more solid evidence is needed, should contact the uploader. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support evidence has been presented that the claims of prior upload were incorrect, and therefore the images should be reinstated unless proper evidence can be found that they are copyvios. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose restoration of the first image. There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the sculpture/reconstruction. While we have a request which covers the first of these, there is no mention of the copyright for the sculpture. The file does not tell us where the sculpture is, so it is possible that Freedom of Panorama might apply, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that this was posted for a Thai competition and the site that was supposedly a copyvio was also Thai, FOP in Thailand would seem logical here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Thailand is probable, although not certain. Thai FoP requires that it was in public place when photographed, but permanent installation is not required. We need to know where this photograph was taken. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward permanence is required. According to @Paul 012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti poster for mother's milk.jpg, the original Thai version included a Thai term which translates as "regularly", but "regularly" is missing from most unofficial translations like those held by WIPO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather support undeletion but opening up a regular deletion request on the basis of being suspected recent works of taxidermy/anthropological reconstructions, and DR history of Wikimedia Commons shows many of the more notable recent taxidermies are found in countries that either have no indoor FoP (e.g. Germany and Netherlands) or no FoP at all (whether complete or partial, like the United States or France); see this and this for the case of hominid reconstructions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vergezocht Peru.jpg

This photo was deleted, but it shouldn't. I'm the owner of all rights on this photo. I’m the owner of all rights to the image. The person in the photo and the person who took the photo are both me. I used a tripod and camera, no one else was involved. There’s no metadata because the image is actually a still from a video I filmed for my TV show "Vergezocht". During filming, I posed on purpose to use that moment later as a promo image, and I grabbed the frame in the edit.

There is no metadata, because the image was extracted from a video take, where I present on camera for my TV-show "Vergezocht". During the take, I posed to create a promotional image, and later extracted this still in the edit.

Here’s a 'behind the scenes' photo taken by the person I was making the documentary about at the time. It shows the setup and location—hard to reach, and very much a solo effort.

Hope this clears things up! Would be great if the image could be undeleted and used on the Vergezocht Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdsanden28 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support See UnDR below -- File:Vergezocht Thailand.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: per proof of identity in other UDR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vergezocht Thailand.jpg

This photo was deleted, but it shouldn't. I’m the owner of all rights to the image. The person in the photo and the person who took the photo are both me. I used a tripod and camera, no one else was involved.

There’s no metadata because the image is actually a still from a video I filmed for my TV show "Vergezocht".

Here’s a 'behind the scenes' photo taken by the person I was making the documentary about at the time. It shows the setup and location for a presentation I was recording. After this presentation, I switched cameras (I held the big camera you see on the picture above and placed my another camera on the tripod to record the video), and put on my backpack. I recorded a few shots of myself, walking towards to edge of the roof, and I posed on purpose to use that moment later as a promo image, and I grabbed the frame in the edit.

Hope this clears things up! Would be great if the image could be undeleted and used on the Vergezocht Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdsanden28 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mvdsanden28: To prove your identity, could you please make a tiny change to your Instagram bio? For example, changing "March ‘25" to "March 2025". You can change it back once we confirm your identity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. Mvdsanden28 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support Instagram site changed as requested. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Adam_Linder_citedesartsparis_picture.png

Hi, I would like to ask for an undeletion request for the file Adam_Linder_citedesartsparis_picture.png. Adam Linder send a mail filling the wikimedia template for give the whole permission to wikipedia to upload it on February 26th 2025. The photo was taken by his teammate Shahryar. And Adam Linder receives the full rights to be the owner of the image.

--Simononwiki1 (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose If the image was taken by Shahryar then it is Shahryar who must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Should I upload it again ? or the image that has previously been can be recovered ?

Shahryar is ready to send a free licence.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 14 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request for restoration of article about a hardworking woman in South Africa making history

Palesa Angela Mohloai The First South African Black Woman to Design an AI Automated Residential Estate in Southern Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednotifications (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

• @Rednotifications: Nothing has yet been deleted. Regardless, Commons is a media repository, and not a place to write encyclopedia articles. That would be Wikipedia. Regardless, the content will likely be deleted, as it appears to be promotional. GMG^talk 12:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Not done, Commons do not have articles. Thuresson (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

File:ItoMabataki1.jpg

This image was uploaded for use in the biographical article about Ito (Mabataki Ito), a Japanese painter and model. The uploader has the full rights and the image is not promotional in nature. The image complies with Commons licensing policy under CC BY-SA 4.0. Please reconsider undeletion. LilyBluemoon (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

この画像は日本の国際画家・モデルであるまばたきイト氏に関するWikipedia記事で使用するために、権利を明記の上、アップロードされたものです。宣伝目的ではなく、百科事典的な内容を補完するものです。削除理由について再検討いただけますと幸いです。LilyBluemoon (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This image is used for a biographical article on the Japanese international painter and model Ito (Mabataki Ito). The uploader holds the rights, and the image is not promotional. It is intended to complement encyclopedic content. Please kindly reconsider the deletion. Thank you. LilyBluemoon (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Professional studio shot or AI-generated image? In the first case, we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. In the second case, we don't want it. Yann (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Quarme Zaggy.jpg

The image is free to use, therefore, I don't think deleting it is necessary. --Maxiyaayio (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose "free to use" doesn't mean anything. We need a free license from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Homlong og Raknestad.jpg

I am the one who owns this picture. The license to apply to it should show that I would like to be attributed, CC By 3.0 I believe is the correct license. Please let me know if it possible to correct it, or if it should be reuploaded. Also, referring to the architect company who is on this emergency building layout poster information, I believe they could have given permission if needed, but they are unfortunately out of business. Most likely it's not necessary, but please check if unsure. Thank you. Kind Regards --R9363 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@R9363: Hi, This is a derivative work, so we need a permission from the architect. If you have it, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I do not have it. Unfortunately Homlong og Raknestangen Arkitektfirma are out of business. See also: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homlong_og_Raknestangen_Arkitektfirma

Sincerely yours, R9363 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Too bad. But copyright doesn't expires when a company gets out of business. Whoever owns the remaining assets probably owns the copyright. If the worse case, this is an orphan work. Yann (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not sure of the company having a copyright. Please let me know if anybodys knows about them having copyright. Also not aware of there beeing any remaining assets. Please let me know about it if there are remaining assets. Regards, R9363 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this got a copyright automatically, so as it is not so old, there is still a copyright. Yann (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose When a company goes out of business, the remaining assets, including intellectual property, are usually auctioned. That would be particularly true of an architectural firm since all of their files on their various projects have value. The entity that bought the IP now owns the copyright. It is up to you to locate that entity and get them to send a free license using VRT. If you cannot locate the entity, then this is an Orphan work and cannot be kept on Commons until the copyright expires many years from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

BradJGuigar.jpg

This photo was taken by me of Brad Guigar and don't wish it to be deleted.--ChrisEliopoulos (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Chris Eliopoulos 4/18/2025

---

I have removed the F10 tag from File:BradJGuigar.jpg as the subject has a Wikipedia article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)