Wikimore

25 June 2026

27 June 2026

Deletion requests on 26 June 2026

June 26

File:I made more songs for UNBEATABLE.webm

This file was initially tagged by SilviaASH as no permission (No permission since) ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the video is freely licensed on YouTube by its uploader, Jamie Paige. Additionally, Jamie Paige is close friends with the developer of the game Unbeatable, RJ Lake. RJ Lake also features prominently in this video. I think it's a fair assumption to make that Jamie, who collaborated on this video with the developer of Unbeatable, and also worked on the DLC pack that this video is promoting, had permission to use video game footage in her YouTube video. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete Unless evidence that RJ Lake and D-Cell agreed explicitly to license the Unbeatable game footage can be found. The uploader's keep reason mostly boils down to "well they were in the video so it must be okay". Jamie Paige was the one who uploaded the video and who chose to add the CC license, or at least, didn't change the CC license from her channel default settings for this particular video. There's no evidence that D-Cell agreed to license it as such. SilviaASH (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

pinging @PresN, who removed the video from w:Unbeatable (video game) when the uploader added it. SilviaASH (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

My reasoning isn't just "they were in the video so it must be okay". This is an official marketing video published by the person that the DLC is named after. Within the video, the developer of the game explicitly acknowledges that he is in a video that will be uploaded to Jamie Paige's channel. It would be very, very odd if Jamie Paige didn't have permission to upload this video on her channel. So bizarre, in fact, that I don't really consider it to be a realistic possibility. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course she has permission to upload it to her channel, but that doesn't mean she has permission to license it under Creative Commons. Further, even if RJ Lake might personally be fine with it, there may be other parties (such as their publisher) whose permission may have been required. Because this situation is ambiguous, the safest option is to delete, unless we can get D-Cell and/or their associates to make a public statement or send an email through VRTS explicitly confirming that the video is freely licensed. If you want the video kept, I'd suggest seeking that confirmation out in some way. SilviaASH (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, while it's entirely possible that D-Cell Games is okay with licensing the video as CC, despite the inclusion of copyrighted assets within it, Jamie Paige does not herself have the right to declare it CC due to the use of their assets, and there's no indication that D-Cell signed off on that. We'd need something from the company to be able to state that everything is all legal. --PresN (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:BWJ-Tsu.jpg

Per COM:SIGNS, informational noticeboards are almost always copyrighted. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. ✗plicit 05:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Wouldn't this be covered by {{South Korea-Gov}}? IronGargoyle (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Adelsberg (Gemünden).png

Wappen in dieser Form falsch (Zahlen haben da nichts verloren), korrekte Grafik vorhanden Sukaq (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:CBS Radio print hori.svg

Not TOO, Derivative of logo design (Eye left) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep No valid reason to justify deletion. CBS Eye is in fact PD, and apparently you don't know about COM:DR and COM:TOO guidelines before nominating a file for deletion. Yayan550 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Tananai logo.svg

Not too, derivative of logo design ( Stars left and right) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep Looks simple enough to be PD to me. Just text and stars. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Pelindo 2021.svg

Not Too - Derivative of logo design, (Stylized elements left) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep as an uploader. Did you know that which object you mentioned is "stylized elements"? Unless you give a detailed explanation about that object in your argument above TOO, your reason did not enough to justify the deletion. If you want to nominate a file for deletion, you must first read COM:TOO and COM:DR guidelines. Failure to read these two guidelines while nominated a file for discussion resulting of the requests rejected. Yann, please close the deletion request if an nominator didn't provide detailed explaination about the reason file need to be deleted. Yayan550 (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:HGH Logo.png

Le logo n'est plus utilisable ~2026-36848-98 (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Gaia Gozzi logo.svg

Above Too (Stylized shape of font presentation, star over I). Derivative of logo design ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Deutscher Wanderverband logo.svg

Not TOO, derivative of logo design ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me like it's just a green triangle with a few straight lines. Looks a bit like a tree. Nordat (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Das Logo stellt eine stilisierte Tanne dar. ~2026-44884-37 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working for Deutscher Wanderverband. As the user before me pointed out, it is indeed a stylized fir. It is our official logo and has been in use for many decades. It is original in as far as there is the combination of the stylized fir and our name below. ~2026-44954-30 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Google Currents icon (2021).svg

Not TOO, derivative of icon design in software. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep Where's derivative? I assume you didn't read COM:DR and COM:TOO properly to assess whether the file above TOO and if this file above TOO, why this file should be deleted. The icon design you mentioned above is actually a simple design that appeared at many logos. Next time if you want to nominated the file for deletion, you need to read these two guideline first. I ask Yann to close this nonsense deletion request. Yayan550 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:KSYL emblem.svg

Not own work, Derivative of logo/insignia design ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, what seems to be the issue? Perhaps I haven´t tagged my upload properly but how is it derivative? (other than obviously being a recreation of a real logo; other versions of which are already on Wikipedia) Björkenindahouse (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I made some changes based on what I saw on similar files. Tell me what you think. Björkenindahouse (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep no valid reason to justify deletion. The file's license has been fixed by the uploader. Next time, if a nominator want to delete the file, you need to read COM:TOO and COM:DR guidelines first. If you have a problem about it, please discuss at respective TOO and DR talk pages. Yayan550 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Does this mean I can remove the deletion request or do I have to wait for "ShakespeareFan00" to do it? Björkenindahouse (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Its work of admin. Any administrator (like Yann) have a task to review or speedily close the deletion discussion if the result already sufficient. Yayan550 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikipedia so I have a lot to learn it seems. Björkenindahouse (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Aragón Televisión 2006.svg

Derivative of logo design. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep No valid reason to justify deletion. Where's derivative? Even the logo itself is basically a part of text that may ineligible for copyright. Yayan550 (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:IAU-USP logo (2010-2023).svg

Not TOO, Derivative of logo design (stylized, placement of letters as text art left) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep No valid reason to justify deletion. In Brazil, TOO for logos are very high, even higher than in the United States. So, most text logo that similar to this one are ineligible for copyright (see COM:TOO Brazil for more information). Yayan550 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep This logo is made of only text, whether plain or stylized Gulf of Carpentaria (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Love Music Festival Logo 2026.svg

Not TOO (Stylized heart elements used) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep Not enough reason to justify deletion, because there exist a same stylized heart element at Category:Heart symbols. "Heart element" are essentially a simple design that are ineligible for copyright. We need to speedily close the DR unless an nominator properly explain the reason why the file must be deleted (please read COM:TOO for further information). Yayan550 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Clear set of facts.

File:Logo Mancomunidad Rivera de Fresnedosa.svg

Not own work, derivative of logo design, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Buenos dias. Este diseño es obra propia. Ya que he sido creado por la propia Mancomunidad Jcfd1989 (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:DKMS Logo Die Spende Deines Lebens.jpg

Sehr altes Logo der DKMS. Wir würden die alten Logos gerne löschen, damit sie nicht mehr verwendet werden. Was immer wieder passiert, gerade durch viele Unterstützer, die solche alten Logos immer wieder nutzen. Marc Krüsel (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

File:DKMS Logo.svg

Veraltetes Logo der DKMS, Löschung beantragt, um die Verwendung des Logos einzuschränken Marc Krüsel (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Das alte Logo sollte behalten werden, damit auch der historische Verlauf erkennbar bleibt - hier sehe ich eher eine Umbenennung der Datei als sinnvoll an Grunpfnul (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion, we keep historic logos. @Marc Krüsel: If you have problems with people using an old logo, do not try to solve them by attempting to delete historic logos at Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:DKMS Logo.svg

Altes Logo der DKMS. Wir würden gerne die alten Logos löschen, um die Verwendung zu verhindern, die immer wieder von Unterstützern passiert und um Verwirrungen zu vermeiden. Marc Krüsel (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep As before: Not a valid reason for deletion, we keep historic logos. @Marc Krüsel: Wikimedia Commons ist nicht die eigene Homepage und wird sich nicht dafür einspannen lassen, Probleme mit der Verwendung von Logos durch Löschen von Dateien lösen zu wollen. Bitte lasst das sein. --Rosenzweig τ 15:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Das ist uns natürlich klar, dennoch wollten wir das versuchen, da wir versuchen, die Quellen für veraltetes Material zu finden und ggf. zu löschen. Für uns als Akteur im medizinischen Bereich und mit unserem Thema als Hintergrund, ist die Erkennbarkeit der Marke im Sinne der Seriosität und des Vertrauens unglaublich wichtig. Jeden Tag werden finden Aktionen vielfältigster Art in unserem Namen statt, die mit der Registrierung als Stammzellspender oder auch mit der Geldspende zu tun hat. Hier geht es uns nicht um den Markenauftritt, sondern den Menschen die Sicherheit zu geben, dass wirklich die DKMS bei ist. Das nur als Info zum Verständnis. Wenn es bleibt, ist das so. Danke euch! Marc Krüsel (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Nl-papoea-orgelvogels.ogg

Incorrect spelling Lotje (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2030 Winter Paralympics logo (English).svg

Not TOO, Stylized mountain -top - Derivative of logo design ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep As an uploader. You need to properly and specifically explain, why this file needed to be deleted; and you also need to read COM:TOO and COM:DR guideline before you nominated a file for deletion. Just something like "stylized mountain" does not have enough reason to justify deletion (as something like this also appeared at Category:Mountain icons). If you have a problem regarding deletion request, you can read it at DR page. I ask Yann to close the deletion request until the user can properly explain the deletion (if he want to nominated an file for deletion again). Yayan550 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Basuki Tjahaja Purnama as President Commissioner of Pertamina.jpg

File:Simon Aloysius Mantiri CEO of Pertamina.jpg

File:Pertamina Nicke Widyawati.jpg

File:Pertamina Yenni Andayani.jpg

File:Dwi Soetjipto.png

File:TRI ANDAYANI.png

File:Leona li.jpg

Grainy, dimly lit photo of a random woman. Description appears to have been made up to imply notability, nobody online matches this description. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Description is either joke, harassment or hoax. Delete Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

aus persönlichkeitsrechtlichen Gründen Simone Kornfeld (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Faculdade de Ilhéus.svg

Not own work, Derivative of logo design (stylized beacom, left) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep In Brazil, threshold of originality is very high, and even higher than the United States. "Stylized beacom" that you mentioned didn't eligible for copyright in the country due to it's very high TOO (see COM:TOO for explanation). I warned again, please familiarize yourself with COM:DR and TOO guidelines before you nominate a file for deletion. Repeated arguments like this isn't really enough to justify the deletion unless you can prove that the image above TOO. The license needs to be fixed. Yayan550 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Orbitz (Drink) Logo.svg

Not own work, derivative of logo design ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Gotthilf Evers.jpg

unclear source and very likely not own work Arnd 🇺🇦 (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Thank you for pointing this out. The source information on the file page was apparently too brief, but the file is not an unsourced modern portrait and it is not taken from a third-party online source.

The uploaded image is a cropped, digitally restored and colourised detail from a historical group portrait/lithograph from 1860, held in the private collection of the Fraternity Bonner Wingolf which received the lithography on 18.12.1860. I personally digitised the original archival item. To my knowledge, this digitisation was not previously published online by another source.

The identification of the sitter as Gotthilf Evers is not speculative: the original group portrait is accompanied by a contemporary legend/caption identifying the depicted persons and their positions in the image. The uploaded file is a crop of the corresponding position in that labelled group portrait.

Regarding copyright: the underlying work is a two-dimensional lithograph from the mid-19th century and is therefore in the public domain. The upload should not primarily be understood as a newly created modern portrait, but as a digitisation/crop/restoration/colourisation of a public-domain historical source. I am willing to license my own restoration and colourisation work freely; the original historical work itself is public domain.

I will update the file description to make the source clearer, including the title/description of the original group portrait, date, archive/collection, shelfmark if available, and an explanation that the image is a crop from a labelled group portrait. Therefore the issue is a matter of improving the file description, not a reason for deletion. --Wheelix-de (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Ludwig in March 2023 (cropped).png

The video this image was uploaded from, This Joke ALWAYS Works by Ludwig on YouTube, was not uploaded under a Creative Commons license. Particularly Queersome (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops, seems like you are right. This was a crop of another file that was already on the en wiki.

File:Screenshot of Ludwig from his most viewed video (as of June 2026), titled "This Joke ALWAYS Works" released in March 2023..png Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: so should that also be deleted? - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so. That file is the same thing.

Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Mikemarien, who uploaded File:Screenshot of Ludwig from his most viewed video (as of June 2026), titled "This Joke ALWAYS Works" released in March 2023..png; presumably both will be deleted, but I wanted to give him a chance to weigh in, in case we are missing something. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Nikolai oigeusu kirik-saaremaa-andres larin.jpg

this is my file and i want to delete it Saaremees (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, no valid deletion reason provided. This image is COM:INUSE in multiple wikis. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Utstillingen inngang.jpg

Not own work, no metadata Wmbata (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It is my own work. Frøken Eilertsen (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:1-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.png

COM:OOS: This appears to be abuse of Commons as web storage space. a) the file name is meaningless, b) its content is not focused on showing one educational aspect but is a disorganized mix of stuff, c) the error message paired with the file name suggests frustration, making the transclusion by the uploader appear to be bogus. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 14:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:ENG png file.png

Company logo. Highly unlikely to be "own work" by uploader and well above the ToO. The Bushranger (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC 0071 (9575110257).jpg

Almost duplicate of file:DSC 0070 (9577903326).jpg (adds nothing). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Amaras.jpg

Not own work. Photographered by Huseyn Huseynzade (d. 2019) Yousiphh (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Isaak Partev.jpg

Not own work. Work is protected by copyright Yousiphh (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:L'œuvre de ADAMOU TOUMBA le tableau d'une famille de la musée de Demsa.jpg

Poor quality, likely unusable. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:WAM! America's Kidz Network.png

This file was initially tagged by Lymantria as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I think this logo is beyond the threshold of originality, hence copyrighted. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly below the threshold of originality in the US, which is especially high for text effects. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Cuban Filmmakers Assembly.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Taichi as Logo Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Wappen Abt Garhammer.png

Kein eigenes Werk, sondern einer unbekannten Quelle entnommen. GerritR (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Kept: {{PD-old-100-expired}}. 1400s work should be PD by now. ~TheImaCow (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Abt Garhammer.png

Siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wappen_Abt_Garhammer.png. Die Daten in der Grafik geben nicht das Alter der Grafik wieder, also irrtümliche Entscheidung. Wie außerdem dort (vorsorglich) erwähnt, ist nicht das Wappen das Problem, sondern die Schöpfungshöhe der Gesamtdarstellung. GerritR (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Defunción de Orlando Contreras NO REGISTRADA.JPG

Out of scope, seems to be a defunction act but without context or encyclopedic value. Taichi (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you check if it is used as a reference (link) on some wiki? Seems to be about Orlando Contreras (singer). Seems like OR, but different wikis allow different things. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 06:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The description indicates that it's a defunction certificate with unregistered information. It's linked to another document uploaded by the same user about the same person, which was deleted because a potential doxing. Taichi (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Robert Brovdi images

Delete The second file above is extracted from the first. In both cases, the files are properly sourced to . However, the source from which these images come says at the bottom, "All materials featured on this site are is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International". As noted in the bolding, these images are not available under the {{Cc-by-4.0}} stipulated on the images. Thus, two problems; (1) the images are not tagged with the appropriate license and (2) the license the images are available under is not compatible with Commons, making them copyright violations. Now, it could be claimed that these images are not protected per the first bullet of COM:NOP Ukraine. However, the government of Ukraine seems to think this does not apply to the content of the website from which these images come. I welcome discussion, but from my view these images constitute a copyright violation. There is also an issue in that the person being depicted in the image is, in all likelihood, Robert Brovdi but the source from which these images come does not identify him in the photographs nor mention him in the article. I also checked the metadata to see if there's mention of the subject of the photo, and there's nothing. We don't know for an absolute fact that the person being claimed to be depicted is correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Gor Ohanjanyan.jpg

Оно принадлежит мне, я хочу удалить. GOR OHANJNAYN (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Criminology 21st Century Theories.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Whyiseverythingalreadyused as Speedy (db-advert) Lx 121 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

provisions

Keep - it is apparently the cover of an OER textbook? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_textbook ) so not that much of an "advertisement" worth at least finding out of it is a real textbook, & if it has any credibility in the field? should be kept ifso. Lx 121 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Berekening.jpg

COM:OOS: Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Unused and unusable formula due to its tiny hardly legible size. Took me a while to figure out it is supposed to represent the European Efficiency of solar power / photovoltaic inverters. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Contischoolb cubism iwarp.png

Personal artwork -- Deadstar (msg) 20:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Keikhosro,khoroush,lifephoto.jpg

clearly under copyright and used without any permission WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:10-map-pakiri-regional-park.pdf

There is no CC licence at the source for the map. The document that has the CC licence doesn't contain the map Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Even though they don't physically appear in the same PDF file, Page 21 refers to the maps as being part of the document and explains how to use them.

Additionally, footnote 14 (on page 26) also refers to the maps as being part of the document.

This occurs, once again, on Page 64,105, and 112.

Each of the park chapters refer to one of the maps as though they are on another page in the same document. The maps themselves reflect this by acting as appendices to each of the parks chapters. They are also labelled as being part of the document, with "Regional Parks Management Plan" as a clear label on each map. A note in small text on each map tells the reader to refer to the park chapter for more details. They are clearly intended to be part of the same document.

Everything describes them as being part of the document. The fact that they aren't in the same PDF file is almost certainly because, for the digital upload, they would've separated any complex images out into separate PDF files (just like with Appendix 6) to allow for things like resolutions and dimensions. The printed form of the plan would've had the maps together with the rest of the document because it is not possible to accurately understand the text without the maps and vice versa. MangoMan11 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just because they are referenced does not mean that the licence applies to them. If they are not part of the document and do not have their own CC licence label they cannot be assumed to be CC licensed. Underlying map data can also be copyrighted, which could be why the maps are separate and not mentioned as being CC, as perhaps the mapping data is copyrighted. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I did not say that they are merely "referenced." I gave reasons for why they are part of the document, not just "referenced". You are not distinguishing between file and document. They are not part of the digital file, but they are part of the document.

Page 21 includes a snippet of the Mahurangi West map (as part of a section that is explaining how to read the maps). If the map data was copyrighted and could not be subject to the CC license, than they would've had to remove that as well. You should have a read of that page, as it quite clearly proves that the maps are part of the same document.

The print version, which the CC license also applies to, would've had to have included the maps as part of the same booklet, given one cannot be read without the other. The instances in which the text says to refer the maps don't provide another document for you to find the maps in, they refer to them as you would things that are in the same document.

There's even an example of a news organisation using one of these maps a few years ago (and they've adapted it and so won't be able to be using it under the fair dealing/fair use exception for news reporting): https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2023/10/19/pakiri-beach-whanau-impose-rahui-on-beach-to-protect-kaimoana/. I immensely doubt that they asked permission to use it, given how long it would take to get a response. Journalists have a good understanding of copyright, and will usually make their own maps (or not have one) unless they can use an existing one that is released under copyright. The fact that they used this one when they could easily have just not used a map for the story (given it wasn't necessary for the story) strongly suggests that they interpreted it as falling under the CC license, which would allow them to easily use it to augment their story.

I don't think there's any ambiguity on this. The license specifically says that it is for the document (not just the file). The document is the Regional Parks Management Plan. The maps themselves say that they are part of the Regional Parks Management Plan. The maps are part of the document that the CC license applies to. MangoMan11 (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That is purely speculative and is not the standard required for Commons.

Journalists really don't have a good understanding of copyright: if they believed it to be CC licensed then they would have needed to provide attribution, which they did not.

This is clearly ambiguous, the map is not part of the document, you are assuming it is part of a physical copy, that because its referenced that the CC licence applies to it, that because a journalist used the map that it must be CC licensed. These all leave doubt as to the freedom of the file. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

And, as usual, you are unwilling to listen to any reasoning once you've made your mind up, and then you selectively strawman the less compelling parts of my argument that were mostly only there to support the more compelling parts, or act as a illustrative example (as with the journalist comment).

"you are assuming it is part of a physical copy, that because its referenced that the CC licence applies to it, that because a journalist used the map that it must be CC licensed. These all leave doubt as to the freedom of the file."

None of that is the core of my argument. And you are strawmanning the print version argument, which consists of a lot more than what you've condensed it down to. Saying that the maps are merely "referenced" is also an inaccurate strawman of my reasoning. What I said is that the text in the plan makes it clear that the maps are part of the same document. The best example of this is page 21, which contains a guide on how to read the document, which starts by explaining how to read the first section of the document, and then how to read the park chapter section, which includes a part of how to read the maps, which it classifies as being part of the park chapter section.

If we focus purely on the core of my argument:

"the map is not part of the document"

I've provided a multitude of reasons why the maps are, in fact, part of the document (none of which you've engaged with), including the fact that they say on them that they are part of the document. "Auckland Council | Regional Parks Management Plan" is listed right there on them. As I have told you already, the license says that it applies to the document. It doesn't apply specifically to the PDF file, which is not the same thing as the document. MangoMan11 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Unless you have read this physical document you have no way of knowing what its contents are Traumnovelle (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't get it. I'm not talking about the physical document. That was an additional point for additional justification. Everything else is things that are digital. MangoMan11 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Also adding File:7.1-map-mahurangi-east-regional-park.pdf and File:7.2-map-mahurangi-west-regional-park.pdf for the same reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Harvey Tree

No COM:FOP for text in New Zealand, NZ COM:TOO is low.

Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The Last Days of Pompeii (1908).webm

This film is still under copyright in Italy. Although one of its directors Luigi Maggi died in 1946, Arturo Ambrosio was still alive 70 years ago. hinnk (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Lightning McQueen & Spiderman Friends Play Doh Stop Motion Video For Kids.webm

In my opinion, clear copyvio, but slight doubts remaining, settling for DR.
There's a sculptural derivative of en:Spider-Man, clearly named as such in the description (stemming from the source). The colour choices (blue pants, red shirt) and the mask aren't necessary for expressing the idea of a hybrid between Man and spider but a copycat of the Marvel character.
The figure is also a main actor in the scene, and I do not see any way to have that as en:Scènes à faire.
The naming in the description and the categorisation fail the COM:DM#Guidelines, the inclusion of the clay Spider-man is also not compliant with COM:DM US. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Banco Master e Envolvidos.png

Logos Are not PD due to Brazilian TOO Felaipo th Apple (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. All these logos are below Brazil's threshold of originality, which is very high. Brazil even has its own template. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2026/06/26

June 26

Robert Brovdi images

Files in Category:Harvey Tree