File:Open Government Licence logo.svg

Hello @Coleisforeditor:

I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you imported File:Open Government Licence logo.svg from enwiki to Commons in August last year (diff), stating that “UK TOO is no longer as low.” This logo was previously deleted on Commons at Commons:Deletion requests/File:OpenGovernmentLicence.svg.

However, many Commons and Meta-Wiki pages still cite that deletion and state that this logo is not usable on Commons; specifically meta:Open Government Licence#Things we can't reuse. Could you point to any community discussion or undeletion request (I was unable to find one) that supports restoring this image?

This would help ensure those pages are updated accordingly and allow {{OGL}} to use the actual logo.

Thanks in advance. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the logo no longer meets COM:TOO UK, which became significantly less restrictive after a 2023 decision of the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the legal system of England and Wales besides the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. This is documented at that page (TOO UK above) and was discussed in December 2024 at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/12#COM:TOO UK after the THJ v Sheridan decision. The discussion which deleted the OGL logo took place in 2015, long before the THJ v. Sheridan decision.

I did bring it up on the copyright village pump at the time but there was minimal input apart from a reply saying it should be okay and linking a few relevant discussions. Apologies that I did not bring it to an undeletion discussion; I was not as fluent on Commons policy at the time.

Thanks, Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Coleisforeditor: Thank you for your clarification. It would have been best if you had opened an undeletion request. Now that the file has been imported, I am unsure whether an undeletion request can still be opened.

The 2015 deletion request was closed by User:Jameslwoodward. He is still active in wiki projects. Could you leave a message on his talk page explaining the situation, and ask whether any changes to the OGL licence or related Meta pages are needed, where such a discussion should take place, and whom to notify?

I am new to Commons policies myself. Thanks in advance. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 06:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Coleisforeditor: , the comment above is correct. Uploading a file that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and can lead to your being blocked from editing here. The proper route is, as noted, posting an Undeletion Request.

I am not expert on the new ToO in the UK, but I would be inclined to let this stay. If someone differs with that, they will post a DR and the community will look at it more closely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I was about to bring this to you on your talk page. I would be fine to bring it to DR regardless, although I am unsure if it would warrant a block given it hasn't been an issue before besides a derivative I made of an image which was later found to be a copyvio, and I consider myself much more well versed on Commons policy now. Thanks, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Balconies on Rennes House in 2026.jpg

File:Balconies on Rennes House in 2026.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balconies on Rennes House in 2026.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JackyM59 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)