Commons:Undeletion request

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

Category:Commons deletion Category:Undeletion requests#*

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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests


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:

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 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)

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see ) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 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). HurricaneZetaC 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)

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Your "most of the time" case is actually an exception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment
Hello @Alexis Jazz,
In your answer on Wikilegal, you mentioned a potential joint authorship. Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a very selective reading of what I said. Jameslwoodward's situation is special. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. While the museum may be a special case, I have never, anywhere, been given any specific instructions by the subjects of a courtesy photograph. And, even if the subjects give very specific instructions, modern point and shoots do almost all the thinking, so the only thing that makes a point and shoot image copyrightable is that the photographer has the discretion to take it at a specific moment.
Note that "Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license" is not correct. As a general rule, in the absence of a written agreement among joint holders of a copyright, any of them can grant a non-exclusive license such as the one we require here. An exclusive license requires the consent of all the joint holders, but we do not require that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 26 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)

Just as the (previous discussion on Chinese copyright laws, where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born, I believe we've reached a flaw on Commons guidelines. And probably it's not exclusive of China: because of the URAA restoration policy (Can I advocate for fully deprecate it?), we have policies and guidelines based on current laws, but, de facto, for Commons is 1996 law what is relevant.

In real world, the distinction between 1944 RoC law, 1985 RoC-Taiwan law and 1991 PRC law would be irrelevant, because any work post 1975 is PD under all three laws, making them reduncdant. But because of URAA, in Commons we should look at laws as they were, not as they are.

In short: First regulatory text on copyright in PRC is Trial Regulations on Copyright Protection of Books and Periodicals:

Article 11: The rights provided in Items (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Article 5 of these Regulations are enjoyed by authors for their entire life. After an author passes away, the lawful successor of the author or the Ministry of Culture Publications Undertakings Management Bureau protects them from infringements.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to the lifetime of the author and thirty years after his death. These thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the author; concerning joint works, these thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the last passing away author.

Concerning photographs, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

Concerning works of which the copyright belongs to bodies, collectives, industrial or undertaking work units or other work units and collective, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, after the author passes away, will be inherited according to relevant inheritance legislation.

Concerning works already published before these Regulations take effect, of all those that did not yet exceed the periods of the second, third and fourth paragraph of this Article, the copyright holder still enjoys copyright over the remainder of the time period.

So, between 1949 and June 1991 the valid normative was 30 years after publishing/death or author, and the law was only partially retroactive, in the sense it guaranteed 30 years term for works created after 1949, but did not restore any copyright for works having its natural term of 30 expired by then.

Our guidelines in Commons apply 1991 law as a whole because, in a non-URAA world, any of the Chinese laws is irrelevant because anything older than 1975 is PD. But in the URAA world we created in Commons, older copyright laws matter.

What does Chinese 1990-91 copyright law say about restoring copyirght? Article 59:

第五十九条 本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权利，在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的，依照本法予以保护。

本法施行前发生的侵权或者违约行为，依照侵权或者违约行为发生时的有关规定和政策处理。

This means the works falling in PD under the 1984 directive by June 1991 did not have its copyright restored.

Here there is an authoritative legal commentary on the 1990 Copyright Law with specific examples.

Which also aligns with Berne 18(2): A work that has fallen into the public domain in its source country through the expiry of a previously granted term shall not be protected anew.

And aligns with URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A): restoration applies only to works that entered the public domain due to lack of formalities or lack of treaty relations, not to works that entered the public domain because their copyright term expired.

And the 1984 Regulations granted 30 years terms, not 50. So, Works in PRC created (or whose author died) between 1st October 1949 and 31 December 1960 (maybe 31 May 1961) were PD by the 1991 law (and therefore, had its copyright expired by URAA time).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose because the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) was retroactive and we cannot say that it didn't apply to works created before 1949. The first point follows from the plain meaning of Chapter VI, Article 55, which says that protection is granted to any qualifying work whose "term of protection as specified in this Law [my emphasis] has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law." The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do

This is your interpretation, not the Courts one. The second point follows, and clearly states "the policies and provisions" (notice it does not say law, it does not refer to RoC law, but to 1984 directive and 1950 Publishing resolution) are the ones to follow for anything happening before the 1991 law. The article has two full paragraphs, You cannot read paragraph 1 in isolation. Whatever the Russian Empire template says or the Russian law said is not only irrelevant, but offtopic to this issue.

You cannot apply the first paragraph retroactively to revive works that had already entered the public domain under the 1984 rules, it contradicts the very 1984 rules (article 11), Berne 18(2) and URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A). Indeed, when Russia entered WIPO in 1995 they did it with a public reservation to article 18. They did it because Russian authorities understood that Article 18(2) prohibits reviving works whose term already expired. This is an international treaty, at the end Russia had to accept it. If China had intended to revive works that already fell into the public domain under the 1984 regulations, it would have needed to make a similar declaration or reservation—which it did not.

Let's do the URAA test:
  • If a Chinese work's 30-year term under the 1984 regulations expired before June 1, 1991. (Any infringements of copyright and the copyright-related rights or breaches of contract committed prior to the entry into force of 1991 law shall be dealt with under the relevant regulations or policies in force at the time when the act was committed.)
  • The 1991 law did not revive it (Berne Article 18(2); China Article 59(2))
  • Therefore, the URAA cannot restore US copyright for that work
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@TaronjaSatsuma: The 1991 Copyright Law did, in fact, restore protection to works that had "expired" under the 1984 Trial Regulations. The NPC's official interpretation specifically uses the 1984 Regulations as an example of how the 1991 Law's "life plus 50 years" term overrides the previous "life plus 30 years" term.
As stated in the official interpretation of the retroactivity clause by the NPC (the legislative authority of China):
比如，1984年文化部颁布的《图书、期刊版权保护试行条例》，规定著作、译作的作者享有的使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终身及其死亡后三十年。假如某翻译者是1950年去世的，按照文化部的条例，该译作的翻译者不再享有使用权和获得报酬权，但依照著作权法，该译作的翻译者仍然享有使用权和获得报酬权。因为著作权法规定，公民的作品，其使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，到1991年6月1日，权利的保护期尚未届满。Translation: For example, the 1984 Regulations stipulated that the term of protection... shall last for the author's lifetime plus 30 years. If a translator died in 1950, they would no longer enjoy these rights under the Ministry of Culture's 1984 Regulations. However, per the 1991 Copyright Law, the translator still enjoys these rights, because the new law extended the term to life plus 50 years, and as of June 1, 1991, this new term had not yet expired by June 1, 1991.
Additionally, Berne 18(2) is inapplicable here because the PRC was not a party to the Berne Convention until 15 October 1992, over a year after the 1991 Law established these protections domestically. Therefore, the domestic restoration of these rights in 1991 did not conflict with any international treaty obligations at that time. Teetrition (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Furthermore, the 1984 Regulations were highly restrictive in scope. Per Article 2, protection was only extended to works "lawfully published by Chinese publishing entities." (我国公民创作的文学、艺术和科学作品，由国家出版单位印制成图书出版或在期刊上发表，其作者依本条例享有版权。) This means many works that did not meet these specific administrative requirements might not have been covered by the 1984 Regulations at all. In such cases, or where the publication status under the 1984 criteria is unclear, we should follow COM:PRE and apply the "life plus 50 years" term as established by the 1991 Law. It would be an enormous evidentiary burden to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards just to argue for a shorter, expired term. Teetrition (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll check everything once I have the time to do so, but it is no be so difficult to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards: pre-1978 works were basically made always by state owned corporations, so: films by Changchun, Shanghai, Bayi, etc; works published by the publishing house making Renmin Ribao, Renmin Huabao, etc; books published by University publishing houses or Sanlian/Joint Publishing (Mainland branch), CCTN/Peking TV and Radio Peking, and many others were obviously "lawfully published" (they were state-owned corporate works). And the facto, any works PD by 1991/1996 would have been published by a state-owned corporation. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Also, for unlawfully published works, it is also easy to discover when those were not.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

To notice, {{PD-ROC-registered}} has been created. This is true for files made in the RoC, so for Mainland pre-1949 registered works it should work.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:7Games Logo.png, File:Betao logo.png, File:Logotipo OIG Gaming Brazil.jpg, File:Logo One Internet Group.jpg

Hello,

I am requesting the undeletion of the following files and categories deleted on 22 March 2026:

Files:

Categories:

These files and categories were deleted as G10 (advertisement/spam) in the context of a sockpuppet investigation involving the accounts d:User:Pamela drudi and User:Fernandin oig on Wikidata.

However, on 24 March 2026, a full undeletion request was submitted on Lymantria's talk page on Wikidata with extensive independent sources demonstrating the notability of these entities. The full discussion can be found here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Lymantria#Request_for_undeletion_of_Q138685752,_Q138711584,_Q138738665,_Q138749746

Administrator User:Lymantria reviewed the request and on 31 March 2026 restored all four Wikidata items:

All four items were restored with the note «As requested», acknowledging that the original deletions were made in the context of a misunderstanding that has since been resolved.

The logos and categories are now needed to illustrate the restored Wikidata items. The original files were legitimate logos of notable Brazilian companies that operate under federal licences issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Finance.

Any questions, I am ready to help.

Thank you for your time.

Beto Amaral pm (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just following up on this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
 Support Images are educationally useful (at least on Wikidata) and should be undeleted if no other problems (such as with copyright) exist. Pinging deleting admin @Lymantria. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I undeleted the one that I deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Pinging other admins (apparently, there's more than one who got invloved in the deletion) @Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:LaDuke Oval Portrait 2000.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having a source, although the source is clearly listed as File:Reception (4099192018) (cropped).jpg. It is becoming more and more apparent that User:Krd should not have the privilege to delete files on Commons. Thuresson (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason why this adds to our educational purpose. It is the same size as the image from which it is taken with the background changed to a garish yellow oval. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All other primary photos have this. Democratic Party, Republican Party, and the Green Party in 2020 and 2024 has this. It's fair to have this for the rest of the candidates (including Libertarian), Can't you use this same argument against the Republican and Democratic Primary pages? The Green Party Primary pages past 2016? the Libertarian Party Primary pages past 2016? It's not fair to exclude certain primary pages but let others keep it, either let them all or non of them. Benadrylchallenge (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, fairness in election pages. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Restoration of multiple historical family files uploaded by [User:Fuzayl1]

File:Nawab Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam.png
File:Nawab Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam & H.H. Maharajah Trivani Singh Hisua.png
File:Nawab Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam Hosting Guests.png

These are historical photos from 1909/1933. They are in the public domain under Indian Law (60 years post-creation). Please restore so the correct tags can be added.

--~2026-22363-54 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Remainder

I am requesting the restoration of a comprehensive series of historical family photographs and documents uploaded by [User:Fuzayl1] that were recently deleted or flagged for deletion due to "No Source/License."

This collection is a vital record of the Imam and Hasib family of Bihar, documenting a lineage that dates back to the 12th-century migration from Aleppo to India.

Legal Basis for Restoration:

Public Domain (India): Under Section 25 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the copyright for photographs expires 60 years after creation. The historical portraits (including those of Nawab Tasavvur Imam and Raees Imam Khan) date from 1909 to the mid-1950s and are legally in the Public Domain.

Source & Ownership: These files are digital scans/reproductions from our Private Family Archive. As a family representative, I am authorized to share these.

Licensing for Recent Files: For more contemporary family photos (e.g., academic/medical portraits), I wish to release them under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license for genealogical and historical preservation.


33 Files to be Restored:
1. Historical Portraits & Figures:
File:Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam.png
File:Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam(Left) & H.H. Maharaja Trivani Singh Hisua(Seated Right).jpg
File:Shah Hasib I Mir Syed Muhammad Zarif.png

File:Mir Syed Muhammad Zarif Shah Hasib.png

File:Mir Syed Muhammad Zarif.jpg

File:Maulana Syed Shah Ghiyas Al Din Shareefi Rizwi.jpg

File:Raees Imam Khan.jpg

File:Mansur ul Hasan Shah.jpg

File:Syed Fariduddin Fairdausi.jpg

File:Pir Mansur Bihari.jpg

File:Syed Muhammad Amin.jpg

2. Family Groups & Lineage:

File:Amin Family and Imam Family.jpg

File:Amin Family and Imam Family Together.jpg

File:Syed Aly Imam, Syed Hussayn Imam and Family.jpg

File:Syed Mohsyn Imam and Syed Hussayn Imam.jpg

File:Dr. Hafiz Syed Mohsyn Imam Quadrie.jpg

File:Mirza Syed Ali Imam Quadrie.jpg

File:Dr. Syed Hussain Imam Quadrie.png

File:Dr. Syed Hussayn Imam Quadrie.jpg

File:Syed Aly Imam Quadrie.jpg

File:Syed Jafar Imam Quadrie.jpg

File:Zamindars of Itwan.jpg

File:Sufi-Jain Seminar.jpg

3. Landmarks, Documents & Heraldry:

File:Babr Wa Khurshid Standard.jpg (Family Heraldry)
File:Hasib Kothi.png
File:House Of Fazal Of Hasib.png

File:Math Kothi Amin.jpg

File:Math Kothi Hasib.jpg

File:Shabaz Darbar, Itwan.jpg

File:Jama Masjid Rajhat.jpg

File:Hadi-hashmi-school.png

File:Khilafatnamah of Maulana Syed Shah Ghayasuddin Shareefi Rizvi given to him by Ala Hazrat.jpg

File:حسیب ایک ہند-شامی قبیلہ جو 1132 عیسوی میں حلب سے ہندوستان ہجرت کر گئے جب سی 20240403 001356 0000.png

Please restore these files so that I may properly apply the {{PD-India}} and {{PD-old-70}} templates to the historical items and ensure this legacy is not lost.

--~2026-22363-54 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Sixty years after publication, not sixty years after creation. Regardless, 1968 is not 60 years ago. See User talk:Fuzayl1. Thuresson (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment: I created a supersection out of OP (the TA's) former four sections to consolidate everything Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose per Thuresson and for OP's AI use and clear logged-out sockpuppetry. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose First, "As a family representative, I am authorized to share these" is not correct. Copyrights are held by the actual photographer and owning copies gives the owner no rights other than looking at the images.

Second, the claim that these are PD is not correct. In the case of works where the photographer is not known, Indian copyright lasts for sixty years from publication. Images in a family album may not have been published until they appeared on Commons. Earlier publication must be proven, case by case. In any event, any image from 1936 or later was under copyright in India in 1996 and therefore has a URAA copyright for 95 years from publication.

Finally, I see no reason to put a lot of time into a request by an anonymous IP editor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Pre-WWII pictures from India are in the public domain in India and in USA (per {{PD-1996}}) regardless of publication, as the copyright started from the date of creation. Otherwise, I agree with you. Yann (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps someone who understands the law better than I could rewrite Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I#India where it says:
"Photographs were formerly protected for 50 years after creation (for creation before 1958), and for 60 years after publication (for publication after 1957)."
Where does that leave a photograph created in 1956 but first published in 1959? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, post-1957 pictures are probably not in the public domain in USA. But I said above Pre-WWII pictures, and the request mentions "historical photos from 1909/1933". Yann (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. According to the sentence I quoted above, a 1931 image first published after 1957 is protected until 2017. That's relevant here because it is likely that these haven't been published until recently. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Laws are not retroactive, except a few cases (URAA), and explicitly mentioned. So copyright of a 1931 image from India expired in 1982. Yann (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
 Support undeletion of the first 2 images, dated 1933 and 1909. For the rest, we need more information. Yann (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I see all reason to put all time and effort to preserve culture, and respect all contributors, even anonymous ones, without preference to those who are more "expert." There seems to me to exist some level of lack of cultural sensitivity in this matter. "Publication" has different meanings in the rich First World, from the places where some of us come from. "Publication" happens by the act of sharing an item with others. Also, a family album is never artistic work belonging to the photographer, but rather "work for hire," copyright belongs to the one ordering the photo to be taken. Yamaplos (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Not so. As far as we know, in all countries the copyright belongs to the actual photographer unless there is a written Work for hire agreement in place. That is true even if the work was commissioned (this was not true in the UK before 1989). The usual license for commissioned works allows the licensee to use the work for publicity and other purposes, but rarely allows the licensee to freely sub-license the work as required here. Therefore in the case of works appearing in family albums, we must must
(a) have a free license from the actual photographer or an heir or
(b) determine from the date of the photograph and its publication whether the copyright has expired.
Where "publication" is part of a national copyright law it is always defined in the law and by subsequent case law. We apply the definition applicable to the country involved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Adult Diaper with Fading Wetness Indicator.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There was no good reason for this photo to be deleted. It has clear resolution and depicts exactly what the title says. Look up all the pictures under "adult diaper" on Wikimedia commons. There are many pictures that are less useful than mine. Mine is the only picture that clearly describes how the wetness indicator works. Some people just upload pictures and say "man demonstrating abdl fetish by wearing a diaper", so why do those files get to stay? Categorizing this as nudity/sexual content is ridiculous. Just look at the picture and the caption I provided. It is clearly educational. ALPHASKYYYXXX (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose: why do you come here when you could have participated in the normal deletion discussion which you were prominently alerted of on your talk page? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Pinging @Issac I Navarro, Dronebogus, and Jon Kolbert: users who participated in the DR: do you find the above argument convincing? Ankry (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Frida Kahlo - Autoportrait dédié à Léon Trotsky.png

First publication was exhibition in 1938 at Julien Levy Gallery in New York City. Trotsky abandoned the portrait in 1939, and Kahlo kept it until 1940, when Clare Boothe Luce convinced Kahlo to give her the painting, where it was returned to the United States and held in Luce's living room until 1988, when it was loaned to a museum. There is no record of any other publication until after the museum acquired it. It was published in the USA, before 1989, without a copyright notice, and no other place. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, I think we must assume that this was painted in Mexico and therefore had a Mexican copyright from the moment of creation. Mexican copyrights last 100 years pma. Kahlo died in 1954, so this will be under Mexican copyright until 1/1/2055. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Under Commons rules, works first published in the USA can be treated as US works, regardless of where they were made, per Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
While COM:L does say, "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published", note the word "generally". In a case like this, where the work was created by a Mexican, with a Mexican subject, it seems clear that the Mexican copyright predated any possibility of a US copyright. Also note that the painting is dated November 1937. The work did not go to New York until a year later and was obviously seen by various people in that year. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a painting created in Mexico, according to your source and the signature on the painting (Frida Kahlo in Saint Angel, Mexico). According to COM:ART The underlying work of art must still be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin. and it isn't in Mexico, yet. --C messier (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

COM:ART is a policy for application of Bridgeman v Corel, it does not address the application of copyright in general. COM:L is the correct policy to cite here. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
COM:L leads to COM:ART for more details (it is in the last sentence of the section). COM:ART it isn't just for Bridgeman v Corel. There is a section below that for other countries (COM:ART#Other countries). C messier (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:YamaPress.jpg

That picture is my own. Might have published in Facebook, no recollection (no longer have FB account, BTW) The name says it ... Yamaplos (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:YamaPress.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
send an email to COM:VRT -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

jtb grave_page-0001.jpg

I don't understand why this image was deleted from both my Mabel Bent and the J. Theodore Bent wiki pages. I am a specialist researcher of the Bents and this image is my own personal photograph taken several years ago. Perhaps when uploaded it originally i did not make this clear or specify that it is intended for unlimited access. If this particular image is unsuitable I will upload another taken by me on the same day. Thank you. Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Please specify correctly the filename. You have no upload (either deleted or not) with the above mentioned filename. --Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose You have apparently forgotten your participation in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Memorial (right) of Theodore and Mabel Bent, St Mary's, Theydon Bois, UK.jpg which explained to you both why the file was deleted and what you should have done to prevent it being deleted and must now do for its restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Arab Communities Support Initiative logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deletion is completely wrong. I designed this file myself and uploaded it last year. Then someone stole my design and reuploaded it to an external website. A user then claimed the file "copyvio" citing the external website, even though there are no dates on that site to confirm they uploaded it before me. Despite proving in the discussion that the other person is unreliable, uploads randomly, and has uploaded many logos of well-known brands here.

Despite I created a similar file as evidence, despite all arguments I put forward in the discussion and that ,the admin deleted it "per nomination" ! Do every DRs is valid and the admins should delete it without check?!

I am truly upset that my copyright was stolen and then my file was deleted as well! Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The image in is dated 08 Aug 2025, so it is likely vopied from Commons. However, it is unclear why this logo is in scope? Was it used in Wikimedia? Ankry (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose I find no Google hits for "Arab Communities Support Initiative" so it is not at all clear why this logo is useful for any educational purpose. Ibrahim.ID is a 16 year contributor and Admin on WP/AR, so we owe him a thorough consideration of this, but I see no reason to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Files by Renamed user c65d0c50abae01d9e87c128f272c0451

I see almost all of the files uploaded by this user were deleted as File source is not properly indicated in 2024 (this doesn't include some previous uploads that the user thought they were PD). They were all marked by the same user who apparently didn't believe they were own work. The user claims to be own work and that removed metadata to protect personal information. (See Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2024/09#Adding_source_tag_for_a_large_amount_of_images)

and many many more. (I will add the other here if these are undeleted). --C messier (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Info 5 files (except this one (3 Mpx)) are 0.5-1.5 Mpx; far too low for 2022-2024 original photos. Non original photos should have a source provided. Ankry (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: source for these files above is claimed to be own work (and could not find solid evidence of that being untrue, I remember tried to reverse search some of them and returned no result). C messier (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Per policy, "Own work" as a source is accepted for unpublished original photos. If a photo is not original, the uploader may be requested to provide its source. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The same must be true of the above as well (don't remember them if they are 2D or not). --C messier (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support these 5 as they are high resolution. Ankry (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: can you check if there are other high resolution images uploaded by the user but deleted? Lack of EXIF/metadata alone should not be a reason to doubt ownership if it is eg. a 12 Mpix file. There are some editing programs that just strip them out (like Photoshop). And a file larger than eg. 3 Mpix is not one that can be grabed from instagram and other social media because they published them in smaller sizes (and if it is published elsewhere it is usually easily found with reverse image search). C messier (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

ارجو عدم الحذف فالصورة اصليه — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabwah (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)