Commons:Deletion requests/2026/04/05

April 5

File:Smartridercard.jpg

Artwork design on the smartrider card is copyrighted - this is in violation of Commons:Fair use. LuvsMG481 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cc-sa-layout

This template appears to be a botched attempt to recreate {{Cc-by-layout}}. The only difference between the source code of the two templates is that occurrences of "by" are deleted and replaced with "sa", which breaks a lot of {{int:}} calls. In addition, the creator (Special:Contributions/Mehuntu) has created a ton of templates from this botched base template. I think that everything should either be deleted or moved to their userspace and that they should receive a provisional partial block from page creation. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not a block, but please stay away from the template namespace until your technical skills are more refined
In addition, transclusion from the template namespace and the other namespaces are the same, except that transclusion from the main namespace requires an empty colon → {{:NAME}}
And transclusion from all other namespaces → {{NAMESPACE:NAME}} Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete: I assumed way too much good faith Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete. Per COM:L, we don't accept list CC-SA license without BY as one of the "Creative Commons licenses on Wikimedia Commons". Creative Commons doesn't even offer one in their main list.https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ Mehuntu appears to be making it up the existence of modern, supported, recommended such licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/deed.en JaydenChao (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
@JaydenChao: Note that the link you used is to a 1.0 license that is retired and not recommended. A retired and not recommended 2.0 version of that is being promoted by the user at Template:Cc-sa-2.0-jp for Japan based on this deed, but no 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 version, and none is offered for the US.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Ok, doesn't even offer one in their main list here or offer to choose one in their chooser.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep I have already fixed it otherwise what is yall suggestion for sharealike license without attribution? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
"Creative Commons has retired this legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works." Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 22:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
So? What is your suggestion? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 23:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
My suggestion? Delete the templates as a waste of time on unused licencing options and keep them deleted unless there are many files specifically compliant with them Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
So instead of apologizing for spreading disinformation and saying "I assumed way too much good faith" when in fact you had none at all you going to continue suggesting to delete valid licenses for no reason? @Jeff G. Are you going to apologize and cross out your false statements above or also double down? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@999real: I modified my statements. These templates are a waste of my time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Trying to get them deleted instead of fixing them is indeed a waste of everybody time. Your statements still contains false information where does Commons:Licensing says CC-SA without BY is not accepted? (It already had {{Cc-sa-1.0}} before) and no one tried to claim they are "modern, supported, recommended" or create templates for non existent versions. Also no one gave actually any problems with {{Cc-sa-2.0-jp}} or reasons that it shouldn't be used, I will start using it for all my photos if no one gives any reasons. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@999real: Where "It already had {{Cc-sa-1.0}} before"? I see no mention of CC-SA on COM:L.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
That template has existed since 2004 (!!) Do you think Commons:Licensing lists every single acceptable license and every other one is not acceptable? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
+1. Any that we keep should incorporate language that indicates that (like GFDL) they are not usable on Commons stand-alone, only as supplemental to acceptable license(s).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Including these templates:
  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Where do you see in Commons:Licensing or the Definition of Free Cultural Works that CC-SA licenses without BY are not acceptable? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@999real: Note the distinct lack of mention or "ShareAlike" without "Attribution" on both, and specifically on https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses#List_of_licenses where "Attribution-ShareAlike" is mentioned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Where do you see that these licenses are unacceptable?? Which of the 4 Freedoms do you think they violate?? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G. So? Are you going to admit you are wrong and apologize or continue defending your false statements and accusations and support deleting free licenses for 0 reasons? By the way, these licenses are from the page Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags which lists all acceptable CC licenses, @Mehuntu created these templates to fill the licenses from that table that didn't have templates yet 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@Dbenbenn: You added the "sa (ShareAlike)" licenses to Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags in Special:Diff/1177701 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC). Do you have an opinion on the above?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Jeff G., {{Cc-sa-layout}} was created by Mehuntu in April 2026. {{Cc-sa-1.0}} was created by Grunt in September 2004. These should not be lumped together. The 2026 creations are an easy delete, the ancient stuff needs discussion which appears to be happening at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#No longer allow some CC 1.0 or problematic licenses for new licensing.
Correction: not an easy delete because the creator also modified for example {{Cc-sa-1.0-nl}} so we first need to mass rollback. That -nl template was the only one. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Girl 1941.jpg

Beginner mistake, this image is copyrighted. I thought PD-old-70 means any image older than 70 is automatically public domain. Labratscientist (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I will add it to English Wikipedia with non-free version instead afterwards. Labratscientist (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per {{PD-US-no renewal}}. I checked copyright records and was unable to find even proof of registration. I think the film would have been considered published in 1941? Based5290 (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Commons requires files be free in both their home country and the United States. It might be eligible for Commons, but I'm not sure.
The film's page (en:Golden Gate Girl) seems to imply it was made in San Francisco and first shown there in 1941 but one of its citations says it was only shot there and actually first premiered in Hong Kong in 1946. If this did premiere in the US in 1941, then it's PD there because it wasn't renewed (per Based5290).
COM:HK says "Copyright in a film expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the death occurs of the last to die of the following persons (a) the principal director; (b) the author of the screenplay; (c) the author of the dialogue; or (d) the composer of music specially created for and used in the film." The film's writer en:Kwan Man-ching died in 1995, so this film would be protected in Hong Kong until at least January 1st, 2046.
I can't figure out which set of copyright rules apply though. I would assume that if it was made in the US and first published there (COM:PUB#United States seems to imply a movie premiere counts as publishing), the home country is the US and so it's PD. However, while everywhere says the film was published in 1941, I'm having trouble finding sources that actually confirm it premiered in the US in that year. I don't know how being made in the US but first being published/premiered in Hong Kong would affect copyright. Tymewalk (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
A 1941 article in the San Francisco Chronicle notes the film's premiere in a San Francisco theater. Based5290 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Clarence Skinner.jpg

If this image was created after 1944 it would be copyright in the US due to the URAA, if it was created earlier it would be PD in both NZ and US. Without an exact date from the source we cannot be certain the image is free. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

File:ПСТ "Вадинск" в порту.jpg

Seemed to be taken from https://googlim.ru/4-foto/sudno-proekt-1332-96-foto ; doubtful own work Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

If it's a 1982 photo as stated in the file description, it may well be an own work. The provided potential source link is dated 22.05.2026, the upload to Commons however was on 7 November 2025. So, while the source link has a less narrow crop than Commons, the Commons upload predates the potential source link. Nakonana (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Have to admit, can't find the photo elsewhere. That source link does look like a photo search aggregation site, so probably just picked up the Wikipedia image (and don't see this one there anymore). The user's other uploads are all related to Vadinsk. The uploader did take a photo of a newspaper at File:Газета "Вадинские вести" от 26 июня 2025 г..jpg, which is a derivative work issue. Maybe this is similar, though it does have a specific date. Not very high resolution, but no obvious Internet source either (for this or their other uploads). Still a little dubious, but it may be an assume good faith situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

File:20191002 Fußball, Männer, UEFA Champions League, RB Leipzig - Olympique Lyonnais by Stepro StP 0323.jpg

The player figure is copyrightable. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep I don't see anything worth protecting in this simple fancruft. --Stepro (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)