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.

SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IC 1101 (SDSS III).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IC1127-SDSS.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:M78 sdss.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0002 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0060 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0157 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0252 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0364 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0400 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0407 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0459 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0523 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0530 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0584 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 821 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1020 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1062 SDSS Aladin.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1474 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1488 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1491 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1496 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1539 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1541 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1542 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1552 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1568 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1576 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1580 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1586 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1587 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1588 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1589 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1590 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1593 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1594 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1604 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1607 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1609 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1610 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1614 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1615 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1620 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1628 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1635 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1642 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1643 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1645 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1924 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC3550-SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC5929-5930-SDSS.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:PGC 53372 SDSS.jpeg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikisky.org-NGC16-SDSS.gif

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey anyone can undelete all of the images as it is clearly under CC BY-4.0 as told in https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use and should be undeleted as soon as possible Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".

Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.

If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

If the SDSS images were in public domain, what the SDSS license for images would be for? Licensing of something that is already released to PD is poinless and raises a significant doubt as per COM:PCP.

If the images are CC-licensed and not PD, I suggest to request undeletion of images that can be currently found on SDSS site and cannot be reuploaded due to earlier deletion: this way you can identify current source for the deleted images. Unfortunately, most of the above images lack precise information about source; they have {{Own}} or "English Wikipedia" provided as source. Ankry (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry bro, I and @SevenSpheres meant that before SDSS moved to PD, these images are uploaded and deleted due to at that time the things were copyrighted but now as they are under PD these images should be undeleted as they are now not copyrighted and are under PD. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

S o what is the CC-BY license (as mentioned in the initial request) for? Maybe, the "data" applies to numeric data only. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think he meant about CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Doing… It will take some time... Yann (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZeta^C 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Polserb,

You are allowed to upload any file that is in the COM:Scope and under a free COM:License.

One could argue that the file is not in the project scope if it contains errors.

Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Several Chinese pictures

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above

Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above

Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above

Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above

File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

There are many more cases, I'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.

In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.

From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。

I don't believe the Directive can give us any clue about this, considering it's not even a law.

(also, to provide some guidance, check this discussion where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born.

For the post-October 1949 Mainland scenario, the question is "when" did the RoC law expire.

• Is the expiration date the proclamation of the PRC in 1949?
• Is the expiration date the creation of a Constitution in 1954 (it's 1954?)
• Given the non-existence of any copyright law until 1996, was the RoC law the one to consider prior to 1991 (even if 1991 was retroactive)? NOTE: under international law, copyright should never be considered non-existent
• Can we agree that at least any work created before 30th September 1949 is under RoC law?

That's why I asked for any court ruling anything on this regard, to have some kind of guidance (I hate when Commons users became judges on Copyright issues, which I believe happens sometimes here) TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The enactment of the 1954 Constitution is irrelevant to this issue, as the PRC government had already promulgated numerous edicts prior to that year. For instance, the Regulations of the PRC on Punishment of Counter-revolutionaries was enacted in 1951.

Furthermore, Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on September 29, 1949, served as the de facto Constitution. Official sources have confirmed that the Common Program functioned as the interim constitutional law during that period. Teetrition (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on pre- proclamation should be a safe terrain (Proclamation of PRC, 1st October 1949).

Even if I insist on asking if there is any judicial precedent on any kind of court, be it Chinese or international, ruling on this issue. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Still, changing a Constitution means nothing.

• Spain have had several regime changes by 1987, and still they used the same XIX century copyright law under all of those different regimes.
• Current copyright law in Iran is from the Sha's time.

RoC copyright law the last copyright law in China in the 1950s-1980s. They don't having any kind of copyirght protection or recognition is not an issue of changing the laws, but because of their very specific understanding of Communism. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Indeed, 1950 Conference resolution and 1984 regulations are considered to be valid texts and seminal to copyright in China.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I found some legal base under PRC law:

• 1950 Publishing Conference Resolution is considered the first legal work where copyright is mentioned (there was an administrative recognition of copyright as something which exists, but there is no term)
• 1994广电部 608号文 confirms 1950 as the strating point of copyright in China (for films) it states:

现对1949年10月1日至1993年6月30日期间国产电影发行权归属问题作出以下规定

October 1, 1949 (the date of the PRC's founding) is the starting point. Films from this date forward are treated as having 版权 (copyright) from the beginning, and they're considered to have copyright because they had distribution rights (1950 Resolution, which was for books). There a alot of nuances on this law, but at least we can consider 1st October as a safe date for under RoC laws works.

合同期限超过十年的（包括影片发行权永久性或一次性出售给中影公司的如《生死树》、《关键时刻》之类的影片），根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》合同的有效期限不超过十年的规定，从合同签订之日起按十年计算，合同期满后发行权归制片厂，必要时双方可以续订合同。

--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@TaronjaSatsuma: File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg, between 1963 and 1972; File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg, around May 1969; File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png, April 1962? Though for the former two, ROC law applies, not Red China's (for the latter one, British HK law applies). —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 02:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Faraday's Law of Induction shown in EM fields.gif

I never received any notice of the proposal to delete this image. It is not a personal or low quality image as claimed, but a valuable illustration of Faraday's Law of Induction, which I was about to add to that article--Loodog (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I find it confusing, in that it moves too fast and the timing is wrong -- the field appears before the magnets. We have many images that do a much better job of this. It is, as noted, personal art of a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Well, let me take another look. No... I confirm that the timing is correct. Remember that the electric field swirls are not proportional to the magnetic field but to its time derivative. The B field goes like sin(omega*t) so the E field swirls go like cos(omega*t), which is necessarily ~~pi/4~~ pi/2 ahead of the field in its phase. I can link you the colab code; it's really just taking time derivatives this way so there's not much to mess up.

2. As for the many images, the fact that none of the images linked are animated was what led me to create this gif to illustrate to a student of mine. I just thought that once I'd generated the gif, it would be valuable to a larger audience than just the one person I made it for.

3.On the issue of the image moving too fast, that's a reasonable take and I can easily modify the code to slow it down to whatever pace works better for illustration purposes.

Thank you for your time in reading and considering my response. Loodog (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled by your labeling of me as non-contributor. I've been contributing significantly to Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects for 18 years. Loodog (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Timing: The field appears before the arrows, which is backwards. Or perhaps I don't understand your symbolism -- note that I studied electrical engineering at Cornell...

As for Non-contributor -- 23 uploads over 19 years does not look like an active Wikipedian to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. A user with 16,948 edits. Account created on 12 January 2006." I specifically created this gif to add to the Faraday's Induction Law article.

2. Explain which field you mean. Maybe you're concerned that the electric field doesn't assume an initial condition of B(t=0)=0. The electrical field will be exactly pi/2 ahead of the magnetic field for reasons described above. When the magnetic field is 0, it is also in maximum change (sin(omega*t) has a max derivative when its value is 0), which is when the electric field will be maximum. Again, I can give you the colab code but the math it implements is very simple: derivative of sin is cos.

Loodog (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chen Fenlan - Yueliang Daibiao Wo De Xin 月亮代表我的心 (1973).opus

This file got a speedy deletion, without discussion, which constitutes a breaking of COM:CSD.
The file had a proper License template: Template:PD-ROC-registered and on the talk section of the License template there is enough info about RoC's copyright prior to 1985 reform.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also to notice: at this very moment of time there are three open undeletion requests about files from China, which seems to be a tricky country for Commons community. I believe this proves how mistaken was the speedy deletion of a file in use on several wikis. If someone wants to argue for deletion (I must insist, Template:PD-ROC-registered is properly documented and it was the result of months of debate) then they should ask for a regular deletion, or just open a debate about Chinese copyright. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging deleting admin @Túrelio, who stated "The song itself is still protected by copyright, so a recording of it cannot be public domain". Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Opening a DR requires new arguments contesting the deletion reason. Note that per US law no sound recording may be PD before 2067. So we need a free license for any of them. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Any argument is new when no argument was given for the deletion. CSD was not valid in this case, at least some time to defend the file should have been given. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio is always a valid speedy deletion reason. No arguments provided why the file is free in US. Ankry (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Original copyright lenghth under 1964 RoC copyright law expired before Taiwan's URAA date. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Gerixeti (euskal mitologia) - Midjourney AI bertsioa.png

As mentioned in its DR and its delinker log, the image was COM:INUSE in eu-wiki. COM:INUSE states, "It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". So, even though the image was deleted for being "out of scope", the image was actually "automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope".

Also, I am unsure why the DR was closed early, as it was closed only after a day the DR was created.

Anyways, I agree with @Bedivere that "a human made version can be created", but currently there are no images depicting this specific subject, so I think this image should be undeleted until a better replacement exists. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember that file. A couple of years ago someone in Basque Wikipedia experimented with AI in order to create files to illustrate folk creatures of the Basque Culture. File should be restored, as a human made version, even if feasible, it's not so obvious (folk creatures aren't in the wild to take a pic of them). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Pasting here my message below: Hello! in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerixeti (euskal mitologia) - Midjourney AI bertsioa.png Bedivere deleted the image, even if all the votes (ping Tvpuppy, Belbury, Iñaki LL) were for keeping it. It's a very strange decision, which wasn't in line with the discussion. As an admin myself, I wouldn't do something like that and I would reconsider the decision after pointed to it (User_talk:Bedivere#Gerixeti). Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Theklan: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy, but at the same time... there has to be a supervote here Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not a democracy, but the only reason given for deletion is I don't like it, which is not a valid reason for deletion either. Theklan (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Try reading COM:DR#Overview. DRs are not votes. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that perfectly. I'm also an admin here. What's your rational for deleting the image beyond the fact that you don't like it? Is there any binding copyright law expressed, any project scope policy we should be aware? The only reason given for deletion was that the poster doesn't like it.

Users closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the clearer the explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request.

This is an evident case where all opinions given were to keep the image and you decided on the opposite. Theklan (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Where did I say that I did not like it? I just stated that it is an AI slop, which according to Wikipedia "is digital content made with generative artificial intelligence that is perceived as lacking in effort, quality, or meaning". My assessment as the closing administrator was that this file is of very low quality and its actual educational use is extremely limited, to say the least. Generating a random, unverified AI hallucination to represent a specific mythological creature does not inherently create an educational file just because someone uploaded it. Stating the previous does not mean that "I don't like it," nor did I close it based on personal preference. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

A file being in use on any project does inherently make it an educational file, though, per the policy at COM:INUSE. It also explicitly does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't say it's AI slop when it is in use on at least one project. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You think that is random. The Wikipedia using it thinks the opposite. Do you have a background to know if this is random or useful? Theklan (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Scenes of City Life - 都市风光.webm

Yet another uncontested speedy deletion of a 91-year old Chinese work. Proposed by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Túrelio under the grounds of "previous consensus": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scenes of City Life (1935).webm.
The film is in PD under both 1944 RoC copyright law and current 1991 PRC copyright law (50 years had passed by 1991, according to article then 59, now 66).
Previous consensus:

• Mickey Mouse appears 21 minutes in. Undelete on January 1, 2024 (It was deleted on 25 December 2023). AFAIK, Mickey Mouse is already PD in the US.
• Two American songs appear in the background: en:The Maine Stein Song (a 1904 song which seems to be recorded in 1930) and Whistling in the Dark with a registry of also 1930. So, 95-year old songs.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Question: Who requested this as {{Unsigned}} user? --~2026-22385-04 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It was the uploader.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support keep per Template:PD-US-extracted-audio. JaydenChao (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose TaronjaSatsuma does not seem to understand that copyright lasts a very long time. A 91 year old work can easily have a copyright that lasts another thirty years, although that does not seem to be quite the case here. According to the DR, Whistling in the Dark has a 1931 copyright which was renewed, so it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2027.

I think that in order to restore this, (a) we must wait until 1/1/2027 for the Whistling in the Dark copyright to expire and find out which Mickey Mouse movie this is. He is wearing white gloves, so it is 1929 or later. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

First, @Jameslwoodward: I'd would be very grateful if you abstain of insulting fellow Wikimedians. I've never insulted anyone, AFAIK, and I don't deserve to be mistreated because I have a different point of view than yours.

Secondly, and unless I've missed something in the film, there is no Mickey Mouse at all in this film. There is a cartoony dog character, but this is no Mickey Mouse by any means (and thus, the first deletion was made with mistaken reasons).

About Whistling in the Dark, assuming it's true the reigstry of the very specific version displayed is from 1931, at least I'd be grateful if someone adds "Undelete in 2027" on the file, so it can be used in seven months. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I probably could have phrased my comment better, for which I apologize, but, TaronjaSatsuma, you mention both "a 91-year old Chinese work" and "95-year old songs" in a way that strongly suggests to me that you believe those are reasons for the work to be PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome, everything fine on my side.

About the lenghth: yes. The movie itself would have fallen into PD 30 years after being released under 1928 RoC law for corporate works (in 1944 law, the movie itself was PD by 10 years lenghth), and under PRC law it is not only PD, but the separate rights are ineligible when airing the movie itself as it was released -and still, corporate work: 30 years length. Copyright in RoC was about registration, so no separated regustry for a script or a musical score to be expected.

The song is messy (because it was not a Chinese work) but still: 95 years old (if the term is 100, then it's 100), but you can see how a discussion about the file is correcting some false conclusions of the first deletion proposal, such as the so-called Mickey. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment The character is not Mickey Mouse - multiple animation studios in the era had characters with vaguely similar appearance, including some that predated Mikey - so that should not be a factor. However if the audio was US recordings, they would not yet be PD per Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings as the term is 100 years, which has not yet passed. -- 19:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Apparently the cartoon sequence was original Chinese animation by the en:w:Wan Brothers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I asked Deepseek about the specific version in the movie, and said it was Song Title: Whistling in the Dark - Performer: Jimmy Green and his Orchestra, which was indeed recorded in 1931.

  
  

  But after hearing both versions, I have my doubts: the song as played in the movie (around minute 61) has whistling during the whole play, and also much more harder trumpets. The voice sounds clearly American, but I'm unsure about it being the specific recorded version (at least the one I linked). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I asked Deepseek about this issue (it was about 1990 PRC law, but the reasoning is the same):

The core of your question lies in a key provision of Chinese copyright law. As we discussed, Article 15 (now Article 17 in the 2020 revision) grants a "separate use" right to the creators of a film's components:

"The authors of the script, musical works and other works that are included in a cinematographic work... and can be exploited separately shall be entitled to exercise their copyright independently."

The crucial, legally defined meaning of "separate use" is using the component work completely on its own, detached from the film.

• "Separate use" includes:

Publishing the film's script as a standalone book.

Releasing the film's soundtrack on a CD or streaming service.

Licensing the main theme song for a commercial

• "Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.

Can someone clarify if this reasoning does apply (or not) here?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Support, with at most the Maine Stein and Whistling song muted (and all other American sound recordings made before 1926 present in-film, if any). As a side note, the PD-recording template says that audio in films does not have to be muted. Does that apply to the use of recordings? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why sound on a disc record and sound on a film strip would be subject to different rules, but I have no objection to undeletion in whole if the US audio copyright is as stated. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    • In the US, movie audio was part of the movie from the start, but recordings on a disc record weren't copyrightable until 1972.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Thank you, that's the best explanation I've heard. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose for reasons not mentioned in my original rationale but rather found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Prospectprospekt#Files uploaded by Prospectprospekt (talk · contribs) 2. One of the films listed there—Street Angel—was the subject of the court decision 朱心、袁牧女等诉北京东方影视乐园侵犯著作权纠纷案. One takeaway from this decision is that we cannot assume, absent strong evidence, that the screenplays of classical Chinese films were made for hire. This means that the default assumption should be that these screenplays are PMA+50, and if the screenwriter died after 1945, the screenplay as published in the film would have been restored by the URAA. Since this is the case here, a selectively muted version should not be uploaded until 2031. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Still, "Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.

  I may be mistaken, but the film as a whole, under the provisions in article 17, once is PD is fully PD. That does not mean someone can take the movie and use the plot to film a remake. But the film, as a whole work, is PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't strike me as free enough for Commons. It's basically a no-derivatives restriction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe. But here we're talking about background music, so I guess every case will have some nuances. Also, some films will have their original script on PD, others maybe not...

  
  

  That's why I like to discuss deletion and to use Speedy deletion as a default tool. With so old works, there are always nuances... TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  The "cinematographic work" is PD, but the underlying screenplay is not that type of work and so (assuming that it was not made for hire) has a different term of protection. This is why the decision I linked to found that the "rights of the film Street Angel expired on ... 31 December 1987 [while] the ... rights of the script ... will expire on ... 31 December 2028." prospectprospekt (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Why are we assuming this film was not a corporate work, and the script expired +30 after publication? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

File:An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (1931).webm

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (1931).webm. File uploaded by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Abzeronow.
RoC copyright law of 1928 had a 30 years after publication copyright lenghth, RoC copyright law of 1944 included movies and gave 10 years after publication, and PRC's copyright law of 1990 gives 50 year after publication copyright term for movies. PRC 1990 did restore copyright for some works, but explicitally said it did not extend copyright for works whose term had expired. Anyway, the film was PD far before 1990 PRC copyright law was in effect.

It was assumed there was separately exploitable works. That figure exists in 1990 PRC copyright law, which does not apply to this file because the film was PD in the country back then. It was claimed the 1990 versions of PRC copyright did not recognize "work-for-hire", or did not clarify its copyright lenghth. But this movie was created during RoC, and RoC 1928 (and 1944) copyright did indeed recognize work-for-hire. So, undelete.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I asked Deepseek about the Copyright of a movie under Chinese law, and how it relates to the screenwrite, music, etc. seprarate copyrights:

When you broadcast the film as a complete work, your direct legal counterparty is the producer (制片者) of the film. The Copyright Law vests the economic rights to the cinematic work as a whole in the producer. Since the producer's economic rights have expired, the film's status as a public domain (PD) cinematic work is clear. Under this specific act, you are not directly using the script or the musical score as separate, independent entities (whether as a book, a standalone lyric sheet, or an audio track).

This is relevant for this discussion, but also for some other related to Chinese media happening right now. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I take back what I said there about Chinese work for hire because I truly don't understand it. I also want to note two things: first, if the deletion was valid, then we would also need to delete File:Sister Flowers (1933).webm; and second, this undeletion request should be evaluated with Faith Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., Home Box Office, Inc. in mind. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

For all of these reasons, plaintiffs copyright infringement claim must be returned to the District Court to afford an opportunity for further development of the record and a sensitive aggregate assessment by the fact-finder of the fair use factors in light of the applicable legal principles

 Comment For public domain works, Commons requires them to be PD in both the US and the source country. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I doubt if that means 30 secs of artworks are de minimis, as said in the case; or wasn't because it's the District Court to rule about it.

Also, I asked Deepseek about the District Court and said

The district court granted summary judgment to BET and HBO, dismissing Faith Ringgold's copyright infringement claim because it found their use of her “Church Picnic Story Quilt” poster as set decoration on the sitcom ROC was protected as fair use

Fair use is irrelevant to us (No fair-use in Commons) but:

Amount and substantiality of the portion used: The court determined this factor supported the defendants. The segments showing the poster were brief, often only a partial view, and even when most of the poster was visible, it was not in exact focus

Effect on the potential market for the work: The court found this factor also favored the defendants. It reasoned that the television episode is not a substitute for purchasing the poster, so there was little likelihood of a negative impact on poster sales. The court also noted that Ringgold could not demonstrate a negative impact on her licensing market over the four years since the episode had aired

And, to add more confusion:

Based on this analysis, the district court sustained the defendants' fair use defense and dismissed the case. The Second Circuit later reversed this decision, finding that summary judgment was not warranted and that further fact-finding was required

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent URAA-deleted files

Per earlier discuusion, I request a mass restoration of the files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hu and Liu 1955.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions which were uploaded prior to 2013 (?) and URAA grand-fathered in by Commons pratices, before further examination (also easier for me and other non-admin users to thoroughly check them). —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 06:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support per nom. JaydenChao (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

After the Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutionality of the URAA more than ten years ago, we had an informal agreement that we would not do mass deletions of URAA affected files. This arose because many of us are uncomfortable with the URAA's extending a copyright long after the copyright in the originating country has expired. However, the URAA is the law of the land and there is no "grandfathering" -- that is, any file that falls under URAA that comes to our attention can and should be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If the consensus was to grandfather pre-2012 files, then it's the consensus what prevails. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Eric Liu, JaydenChao, TaronjaSatsuma I suggest you all read Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. The word "grandfather" does not appear and paragraph three explicitly requires deletion of files after careful evaluation of the URAA status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, and the consensus of keeping files updated before the 1 March 2012 date, as stated on Template:Not-PD-US-URAA.

I didn't use the term grandfathering, and IDK if it's the specific term to be used or not, but AFAIK, the consensus of the 1st March 2012 was never changed. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Apparently you did not bother to read Commons:URAA-restored copyrights so I will quote it here:

"Following a discussion at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA and a subsequent unsuccessful review of the precautionary principle, it was decided that files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."

Note that the paragraph above cites Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, so it was established after the cited page. Also note that we have been regularly deleting URAA violations that were uploaded before 1 March 2012 including those that are the subject of this request. Many of us, including me, don't like it, but it is US law and there has been at least one successful prosecution under it, so we cannot simply ignore it and put users of our files at risk. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I'm not asking for an unconditional restoration of the files, I'm just requesting a reverse for the un-thoroughly thought out mass deletions (i.e. not with "careful evaluation", which were explicitly discouraged by Commons policy practices) made by several users. From there, we can re-examine the files, and determine which to delete under current URAA rules. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 05:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC),

I quite agree with Eric Liu. For URAA deletions, we need a real proof that the files are affected, so just an allegation. Yann (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't as hard as you're making it. Either they were PD in 1996 or not. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hu and Liu 1955.jpg are all files from the 1950s, which became PD in the 2000s. Most of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions are even later, but all are post 1946 which makes them not PD on the URAA date. We have better things to do with our time than creating individual DRs for 82 files which have already been looked over fairly carefully. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

pre-1949 works must be considered under 1944 RoC copyright law, not the PRC's, that's why the deletion decision was contested. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why? 1944 is irrelevant; the questions are was it in copyright in its home nation (as considered by the US) in 1996, and is it in copyright in its home nation (for Commons' purposes) now? For works published on mainland China, I can't see any reason why the PRC wouldn't be the correct nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the file was taken in China under the RoC government (so, RoC law) and the file had its copyright expired by both 1996 and 2002. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Opening of sculpture on Patriot Park 06.jpg

I request that the photograph be restored, as it was cropped after it was submitted for deletion. However, I didn't have time to comment on the page, hoping the Wikimedia Commons administrators would notice. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support The sculpture is no longer in the photo. User:Krd should not be involved in deleting files. Thuresson (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose No {{Licensereview}} was requested and the source site does not come up, so the license is unverifiable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment The image is available at with the mention © ТК «Звезда». Yann (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose: Yann is right, and I don't hear of a free licence from the creators Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Jameslwoodward, @Thuresson, @Whyiseverythingalreadyused, @Yann New source of photo by https://mil.ru/news/274609e9-9bba-4d8a-b59a-b359394024b2 on CC BY 4.0 licensed. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

   Comment The website's footer states:

  © Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

• Translation:

  © All materials on the Russian Ministry of Defense's internet portal are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I can not access the named site. I would guess that the Russian military has blocked access from the West. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Women married by age 15, COM.svg

This was deleted as "exact or scaled down duplicate" of "Average per capita vegetable intake vs minimum recommended guidelines, 1961 to 2023, SOM.svg", which is clearly wrong somehow. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 08:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Túrelio did the deletion. I think it was in error. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it was indeed a duplicate of File:Daily_income_or_consumption_of_the_richest_10_marimekko,_BEN.svg, as correctly tagged by OptimusPrimeBot, after the file had been overwritten several times with a completely different image, which should not have happened. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yah the OWID upload tool malfunctioned. User:Túrelio We are trying to find this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Consent-based_and_coercion-based_sexual_violence_legislation_world_map.svg Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Túrelio are you able to move it to here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Consent-based_and_coercion-based_sexual_violence_legislation_world_map.svg without leaving a redirect? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Moving File:Women married by age 15, COM.svg? Technically yes, but I doubt that this would comply with our policy Commons:File renaming. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

That was the name the file was at before it was moved by mistake by me Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Done now, though it wasn't possible without leaving a redirect, which I thereafter deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my mistake :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Túrelio how does it not comply? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I think it would be acceptable to categorize the deletion of this short-lived accidentally created redirect as housekeeping. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

But when it's redirecting to the wrong target, that's a problem that deletion will not solve. At least it's fixed now. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 18:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by 林未釋

Please restore the following pages:

• File:武漢會戰九江附近戰爭要圖.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:淞滬會戰第八集團軍杭州灣北岸及浦東防禦要圖.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:張發奎在抗戰初期攝.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:左起黃琪翔、陳銘樞、郭沫若、張發奎、葉挺.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:李宗仁與張發奎.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:李濟深全家合影優化.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1940年初在桂林聚會為白崇禧母親祝壽.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:中國戰區西南方面美軍指揮官麥克鏐將軍.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:桂柳會戰經過要圖.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

And also:

• File:蔣渭水先生的臨床講義.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) because 蔣渭水 died in 1931.
• File:蒋介石出席开罗会议.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) This file was deleted by Krd because "No license since 6 November 2022".

Reason: see previous discussion, pre-1949 China works or pre-10 July 1975 Taiwan works. I don't know why they were deleted. JaydenChao (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I withdraw File:桂柳會戰經過要圖.jpg File:淞滬會戰第八集團軍杭州灣北岸及浦東防禦要圖.jpg File:武漢會戰九江附近戰爭要圖.jpg because they likely copied from book. JaydenChao (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:19872961-DeadEarth-Players-Handbook-Illustrated.pdf

the work is free and open under the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE 1.1 no invariant sections and no front back texts it says so on the first page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exed1960 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The log is here. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The summary of the first upload says, "©1994-2002 The Game Crafter, LLC. All rights reserved."

Just in case that is wrong, are there any administrators who understand what an FDL 1.1 is? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose For FDL, see COM:L. While FDL would be permitted here for this work, the manual contains the following:

"You do not have the right to create derivative works of or make a profit via deadEarth without the prior expressed written consent of Anarchy inK Corporation."

That is inconsistent with Commons requirements and clearly overrides the boilerplate license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by JohnLEE Brothers

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Cirque du Soleil ad Venetian Casino, Macao.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MC 澳門 Macau 路氹 Cotai 上葡京酒店 Grand Lisboa Palace November 2024 R12S 29.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MC 澳門 Macau 氹仔 Taipa 地堡街 Fort Street 泉福新村 Tsuen Fuk Sun Village 達榮魚翅湯麵 Tat Wing Fish Fin Soup Noodles November 2024 R12S 121.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MC 澳門 Macau 氹仔 Taipa 地堡街 Fort Street 泉福新村 Tsuen Fuk Sun Village 達榮魚翅湯麵 Tat Wing Fish Fin Soup Noodles November 2024 R12S 120.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MC museum Macau Instituto Cultural do Governo da Governo da RAE de Macau 路氹考古文物展 ancestors exhibition March 2025 R12S 46.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MC museum Macau Instituto Cultural do Governo da Governo da RAE de Macau 路氹考古文物展 ancestors exhibition March 2025 R12S 45.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: per Category:Macanese FOP cases/kept. COM:MACAU does not mention buildings/architecture being protected works in any way. FOP for "works of art placed in public places" is explicitly allowed. JaydenChao (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I deleted the last two. Text is not "a work of art", it is copyrighted as literary work. Does FoP in Macau actually cover it? First four have the issue that they are not permanently placed, they are temporarily displayed. Most jurisdictions (but not all) require it to be permanent. Also are casinos and restaurants "public places"? Abzeronow (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Macau law does not explicitly distinguish between permanent and temporary displays. JaydenChao (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, how does Macau law define a public place? Abzeronow (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Macau law does not define what is a public place, but existing kept cases suggest that publicly accessible interiors are generally treated as public places on Commons. JaydenChao (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

And also:

• File:19690111周宏濤.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19690409蘇德良.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19690506羅友倫.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19690819謝國城.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19690913李登輝.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19700107何莉莉.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19700310王羽 (headshot).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19700310王羽.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19701120邵逸夫.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19580613黑人超氟牙膏.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1958甘阿炎.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19610413張任飛.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19610903沈怡.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1960年代的鍾肇政先生.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:58年金龍的棒隊.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:19660215陸英修.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1966嚴孝章.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1967謝貫一.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: per 蔣桂琴 died in 1972, pre-1975 Taiwanese work. JaydenChao (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Kawthoolei Army.svg

Missed the opportunity to state my case (didnt get an email). I have personally made a rendition of the flag in Inkscape based on photographed sources of . with exclusively and only using Public Domain designs File:KNLA Badge.svg made by user Albert Poliakoff (Under ((self|cc-zero))) and File:Flag_of_the_Karen_National_Union.svg made by Sshu94 (Under ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0))). Posted under self-CC. Due to the limited amount of pictures available of the group, I also took some creative liberties by hand (design, symbol, proportion, colors, and design constraint from reusing SVG assets stated in above) solely by using photos; such had made it fairly different to the actual flag of the Kawthoolei Army (the actual flag being: , ie. gradation, proportion, coloration, emblem being different). Due to the simplicity (consisting of simple shapes such as a canton], a half-circle, three stripes (with its base proportions from user Sshu94), and the public domain emblem design made by Albert Poliakoff derived from the KNLA, it should also be under PD-flag) and nature of fully reusing public domain designs made by other users in Commons, this deletion should be reverted. Other flags with the same or more complexity are seen listed PD under SVG flags of Myanmar. Kaliper1 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lazăr Iliescu.jpg

Hello,

Please undelete this file, which is linked to an open VRT ticket awaiting review. The photograph of Lazar Iliescu was taken between 1930 and 1940 by an unknown author, legally qualifying as an anonymous work. Under the successive Romanian copyright frameworks of the 20th century—specifically the 1923 Law on Literary and Artistic Property and Decree 321/1956—any potential protection for such anonymous photographic works conclusively expired decades prior to 1996, meaning its copyright was not restored in the US under the URAA. Even if evaluated under the maximum retroactive 70-year term from creation introduced by later legislation, the copyright expired at the absolute latest in 2010. Furthermore, since Lazar Iliescu passed away in 1977, all posthumous personality rights have ceased to exist. The VRT correspondence from his direct descendant serves strictly to verify the photo's historical provenance from the family archive, rather than acting as a copyright license for an already public domain work. As the file is fully in the public domain, please restore it.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kataadj (talk • contribs) 06:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kataadj:

1. Signatures are required by policy
2. If the VRT was told to process something, let it do its thing

Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose If VRT volunteers need undeletion in order to process the ticket they will request so. Ankry (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment VRT cannot be helpful here. A 1930's Romanian work was under copyright in 1956 and therefore had its copyright extended to fifty years from publication by the 1956 Act. If there was publication before 1946, then it was PD before the URAA date and the URAA does not apply. If the image has been in a family archive and not published until its upload here, the URAA copyright will last until 1/1/2122 (95 years from its upload here). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is completely unrealistic. There is no reason why {{PD-RO-photo}} would not apply. Yann (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-RO-photo}} starts after "issuance" -- that is, publication. There is no evidence that this family album image was published before its upload here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The Romanian Law No. 8/1996 (Article 28) explicitly states:

"The duration of economic rights over collective works is 70 years from the date the works were brought to public knowledge. If this is not realized within 70 years from the creation of the works, the duration of economic rights expires after 70 years from the creation of the works."

Since the photo was taken around 1930s—1940s (let’s say 1947, when he was 60), the 70-year term from creation expired between 2005 and 2017. It is firmly in the Public Domain.

On a practical note, I wrote this biography and reached out to the subject's family to get a quality photo for the article. They gladly shared it from their private archive out of respect for his memory, and they sent the VRT email to confirm its historical provenance. It is a bit frustrating to hit these obstacles over a clear public domain image. Kataadj (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That is helpful, thank you. Since, as you say, the image was under copyright in Romania until at least 2005, it was under copyright on the URAA date and therefore is copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No, please read {{PD-RO-photo}} again. Yann (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if this photo is (and was on URAA date) in PD in Romania, it can in PD in the United States if was published (copyright notice isn't expected in this case) before 1 March 1986, otherwise normal copyright term applies (not expired anyway). So date of first publication is necessary for determining of the copyright status. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, copyright term in the United States is 70 years pma for works, first published after 1 March 1986, so this photo can be in PD, but we need more information. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yann, I have read it several times and obviously you think I am missing something. All of the terms quoted in the template begin with issuance (publication) and the evidence is that this was not published until recently.

Evelino Ucelo, that true if the URAA does not apply and the author is known. If the author is unknown, it is 120 years from creation. The URAA is 95 years from creation in either case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:2325007 gibthom interlude.png

Image, not sure why this was deleted per F10, it isn't made by the uploader nor depicts the uploader (User:Rose Abrams). The artist doesn't seem to be a low-profile individual. --HyperAnd [talk] 10:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My intention with uploading it was simply the high quality and level of detail in the artwork. Rose Abrams (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support The deletion reason does not seem valid. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose F10 is badly named and can include not only images of the uploader, but personal images created by them. We do not keep art from non-notable artists. More important here is that the named source has very restrictive license rules (personal use only), so the CC-BY license is not valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The source page clearly states CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Ankry (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Also I see no evidence that the declared image author is the same as the uploader. Ankry (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not the author, yes. The author was stated clearly on the file page, as were the license released. Rose Abrams (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed the license on the very busy page. Nonetheless, it is personal art from a not-notable artist and is therefore out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Sands Cotai Central.svg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Sands Cotai Central.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The file was Speedy deleted (SD) by Túrelio as Copyvio, per , Macau's ToO is relatively high. (單純具紀錄價值之照片，尤其係文字作品、文件、商業文件、技術繪圖及類似物品之照片，均不受保護。 English: “Photographs possessing merely documentary value, especially photographs of written works, documents, commercial documents, technical drawings, and similar items, shall not be protected.”) JaydenChao (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Opo0210b.tif & File:Herbig-Haro 46-47 - Eso1336a.tif

I want to request to undelete both TIFF variant of the image uploaded by User:Fabian RRRR as none of the members mentioned in both of the images are under Creative Commons as of now and is under Template:ESA-Hubble & Template:ESO with other details in present in there website are https://esahubble.org/images/opo0210b/ and https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1336a/.

I also want to rename both from File:Opo0210b.tif and File:Herbig-Haro 46-47 - Eso1336a.tif to File:Globular Cluster M4 (opo0210b).tiff and File:Stunning ALMA and NTT image of newborn star (eso1336a).tiff

Hopefully both of them will be undeleted and others like these image will be undeleted as soon as possible. Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - A Guarda, A Guarda.png

• File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - Camposancos, A Guarda.png

Deleted by User_talk:AntiCompositeBot#Warning about File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - Salcidos, A Guarda.png, who later doesn't detect anything wrong (or by @User:Krd. Licensed by template:SobreiraLic like the rest of the files with the same license. Name should be preserved to keep the structure of the rest of maps uploaded, aimed for templates. I would upload it again but I'm not allowed. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 22:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The two files have no upload information except a category -- no source, no author, no license. While {{SobreiraLic}} contains all of that, it apparently confused the bot that does patrolling. The template also has far more information, mostly not needed, than is required in a license template which could simply be replaced with CC-BY-SA. I might suggest that the template should be deleted -- I see that you have used it 461 times, but there are bots that will do the replacement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Andrei Chikatilo (1990).jpg

This is a mugshot from Soviet Union, namely from Russian SFSR. Commons is full of Soviet/Russian mugshots under {{PD-RU-exempt|type=mug shots}} (Category:PD-RU-exempt (mug shots)), so it seems appropriate.

It seems to fall under official documents which must have legislative, administrative or judicial character.

Ђидо (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

file:Miraheze-tan.png

user: Fitindia deleted this as F10. F10 does not apply to this file (the author was an active contributor with over 200 valid edits on Commons) and an actual DR is currently up for it. --Dronebogus (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The uploader is globally locked. So what would be the educational use of this? Yann (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That is a rather non-sequitur sounding argument. I think what you’re saying is “F10 applies because the uploader is locked; what other reason is there to keep this?” If that’s the case I think simply already having a DR that hadn’t reached consensus is valid enough reason to undelete, since the educational use was being discussed there. Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: COM:Scope: "the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project" (emphasis mine). Also context: the uploader account was locked because the account was compromised, not because the uploader abused it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose AI art from a not-notable artist. Out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The artwork was not AI generated. What makes you think it is? Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Only because most such art these days is AI and it has that look. Even if hand drawn, we don't keep art from non-notable artists, since such art has little or no educational value. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn’t look remotely AI generated to me, and it being AI is especially unlikely given the creator was only active in the early 2020s when AI was barely capable of generating passable results. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support {{User page image}} - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, the user is globally locked. With only 280 edits on Commons, and none in almost three years, it is marginal whether the user would be allowed user page images. Also note that the image was uploaded 3 1/2 years ago and never appeared on the user page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

280 edits is more than enough to not qualify for f10 in any case, and we don’t punish users by deleting their images after they are blocked. This is simply an out of order speedy deletion that should never have happened. Dronebogus (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Being globally locked makes no difference, especially in this case where the account was locked because it was compromised. That is unless the image was uploaded after the account was compromised, but I've seen nobody argue that. none in almost three years is specifically addressed by our policy: "as long as that user is or was an active participant". There is no time limit. You don't get to delete files even if a user died 20 years ago.

and never appeared on the user page My reading of the policy has always been that "use on a personal user page of Commons or another project" includes user subpages. If it didn't, it would have said "use on one's user page on Commons or another project". Granted it doesn't explicitly include subpages, but do we really want to open the door to delete any image uploaded for a userspace essay or user template as F10?

With only 280 edits [...] it is marginal whether the user would be allowed user page images. That is a perfectly acceptable argument to make in a DR. Whether the image should be kept in the end I don't know at this point, but I agree with Dronebogus that a DR is the way to go here, not F10. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Tr33wassuplive4.png

This photo was took by me in the following event. Please keep this photo in wiki library. I also have other photo to prove this is owned by me.

Event: Wassup Live

Place: Hong Kong airport

Date: Mar 7

Time: 5pm-6pm

Artist: Tr33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinasiuwk (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Info Re-uploaded as File:Tr33Live2026.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lucía Fuengallego - Estreno Jason y las Furias - Merida 2025.jpg

Poseo los derechos para poder publicar esta imagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by SofíaLed (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You wrote "The photographer send it to me and he allows the publication of this photo on wikipedia." A permission (only) for Wikipedia cannot be accepted on Commons. It needs to be a general free license, such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Insekten Hotel 01.jpg

The Image was copyright free([]). Best wishes LeonmaxXWiki (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Problem ist explained here: Commons:Bad sources#Pixabay.com. Their license-summary states the problem under "You cannot sell or distribute Content ...". It might be a better solution to ask the photographer for a Commons-compatible license. --Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Jinoos Taghizadeh -- Photo by Mahsa Alikhani (2023).jpg

This photo is free to share because it is already publicly available on various websites. Below are links to the image on other websites:

https://hafteh.ca/uploads/news/2023/10/20/1-Jinoos%20Taghizadeh.%20Photo%20by%20Mahsa%20Alikhani.webp

https://jinoostaghizadeh.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/jinoos-taghizadeh.-photo-by-mahsa-alikhani-e1744654714585.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisyyh (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose

Commons:Licensing § Acceptable licenses states:

"All copyrighted material on Commons (not in the public domain) must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose; simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:

• Republication and distribution must be allowed.
• Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
• Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
• The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable.
• Acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required.
• Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required.
• For digital distribution, use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management (DRM) may be required."

You need to know that availability on the internet ≠ approval at https://freedomdefined.org/Definition. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost everything publicly available on the Web is covered by copyright and not usable here. The first site named above has

© 2026 مجله هفته. مجله هفته مسئول محتوای سایت های دیگر نیست.

and no free license. The second site named above does not have any free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

大阪日本民藝館の棟方志功の『大世界の柵』の画像削除解除要請

私が撮影しウィキコモンズにアップロードした大阪日本民藝館の棟方志功の『大世界の柵』の画像は、大阪日本民藝館の職員並びに関係者に許可を得て撮影し、インターネットによる公開の許可も得ています。速やかなるその画像をウィキコモンズにて削除の解除をお願いします。 藤原 秀樹 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

このファイルですか？ Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I cannot find the file. Please write the name out including ":file:" at the beginning and either ".png" or ".jpg" at the end.

Also note that the museum generally cannot give the free license required for use here. That must usually come from the artist themself (or an heir) and must be sent directly using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:大阪日本民藝館第4展示室に11月に展示されていた棟方志功による「大世界の柵乾神々より人類へ」.jpg

私が撮影した大阪日本民藝館の第4展示室の棟方志功の『大世界の柵』のウィキコモンズの画像の削除を速やかに解除して復旧して下さい。この画像の写真は大阪日本民藝館の職員並びに関係者の許可を得て撮影し、且つインターネットに公開する事も許可を得ています。さらに私はこの画像の写真を撮影する為に正式に入館チケットを買いました。よろしくお願いします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 藤原 秀樹 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Files deleted in COM:Deletion requests/Two British logos

• File:EDGE logo.svg
• File:EDGE logo test.svg
• File:Stansted Airport logo.png

British TOO have been raised in 2023. Not sure about the airport logo, as it's been deleted, but the Edge logo is 100% below TOO now. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)