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.
Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.
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.
if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
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.
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.
Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file.
In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed.
The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."
When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived.
When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading").
Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.
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). HurricaneZetaC23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
（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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
1984 Trial Regulations on the Protection of Book and Periodical Copyright
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.
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:
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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: 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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Republic of China works are not protected under Berne. The People's Republic of China's works are protected under Berne, so for non-WTO countries, mainland Chinese works will only be protected as PRC works. As the PRC claims to be the only successor to the Chinese government of the 1940s, and is formally recognized by virtually all nations, it seems wisest to accept their claim for mainland Chinese works and restrict using the ROC rules to works of Taiwan, which they have an actual physical claim over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)reply
@Prosfilaes Republic of China works are not protected under Berne?! What I've touched from zh.wikisource is that they really can be protected under Berne (though however the URAA date for that isn't 1 Jan 1996, but 1 Jan 2002). ~2026-38847-11 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply
A lot of works can be protected under Berne for various reasons, but the Republic of China is not a signer of the Berne Convention, because PRC. The Republic of China is a WTO member, as of 2002, which is why they have a URAA date, which will protect them in most of the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Request for Correction of Incorrect Undeletions
The following two cases were incorrectly undeleted. They are Hong Kong and Taiwan works that have nothing to do with the current debate whether the current PRC law is retroactive, and should remain deleted per their original DRs:
This photograph was taken in Hong Kong in 1947 and, under the then-applicable British copyright law, a published photograph was protected for 50 years from publication (expiring in 1997); it was still under copyright in its origin (Hong Kong) on the URAA restoration date of January 1, 1996, meaning its U.S. copyright was restored under URAA.
Creator Chen Jing-hui died in 1968, and Taiwan's copyright term extends 50 years post-mortem; his works were still under copyright in their source country on January 1, 2002 (the URAA restoration date for Taiwan), which caused the U.S. copyright to be restored under URAA.
As mentioned in its DR and its delinker log, the image was COM:INUSE in eu-wiki. COM:INUSE states, "It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". So, even though the image was deleted for being "out of scope", the image was actually "automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope".
Also, I am unsure why the DR was closed early, as it was closed only after a day the DR was created.
Anyways, I agree with @Bedivere that "a human made version can be created", but currently there are no images depicting this specific subject, so I think this image should be undeleted until a better replacement exists. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)reply
I remember that file. A couple of years ago someone in Basque Wikipedia experimented with AI in order to create files to illustrate folk creatures of the Basque Culture. File should be restored, as a human made version, even if feasible, it's not so obvious (folk creatures aren't in the wild to take a pic of them). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it's not a democracy, but the only reason given for deletion is I don't like it, which is not a valid reason for deletion either. Theklan (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I understand that perfectly. I'm also an admin here. What's your rational for deleting the image beyond the fact that you don't like it? Is there any binding copyright law expressed, any project scope policy we should be aware? The only reason given for deletion was that the poster doesn't like it.
Users closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the clearer the explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request.
Where did I say that I did not like it? I just stated that it is an AI slop, which according to Wikipedia "is digital content made with generative artificial intelligence that is perceived as lacking in effort, quality, or meaning". My assessment as the closing administrator was that this file is of very low quality and its actual educational use is extremely limited, to say the least. Generating a random, unverified AI hallucination to represent a specific mythological creature does not inherently create an educational file just because someone uploaded it. Stating the previous does not mean that "I don't like it," nor did I close it based on personal preference. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)reply
A file being in use on any project does inherently make it an educational file, though, per the policy at COM:INUSE. It also explicitly does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
You think that is random. The Wikipedia using it thinks the opposite. Do you have a background to know if this is random or useful? Theklan (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Restore: The fundational objective of Commons is to be the repository of free images used in Wikipedias - while not editorialising them. This deletion is either trying to editorialise euwiki or telling wikipedias that they should host locally their files instead of uploading them to Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Yet another uncontested speedy deletion of a 91-year old Chinese work. Proposed by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Túrelio under the grounds of "previous consensus": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scenes of City Life (1935).webm.
The film is in PD under both 1944 RoC copyright law and current 1991 PRC copyright law (50 years had passed by 1991, according to article then 59, now 66).
Previous consensus:
Mickey Mouse appears 21 minutes in. Undelete on January 1, 2024 (It was deleted on 25 December 2023). AFAIK, Mickey Mouse is already PD in the US.
OpposeTaronjaSatsuma does not seem to understand that copyright lasts a very long time. A 91 year old work can easily have a copyright that lasts another thirty years, although that does not seem to be quite the case here. According to the DR, Whistling in the Dark has a 1931 copyright which was renewed, so it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2027.
I think that in order to restore this, (a) we must wait until 1/1/2027 for the Whistling in the Dark copyright to expire and find out which Mickey Mouse movie this is. He is wearing white gloves, so it is 1929 or later. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Cartoon character at 21st minute of the film.First, @Jameslwoodward: I'd would be very grateful if you abstain of insulting fellow Wikimedians. I've never insulted anyone, AFAIK, and I don't deserve to be mistreated because I have a different point of view than yours.
Secondly, and unless I've missed something in the film, there is no Mickey Mouse at all in this film. There is a cartoony dog character, but this is no Mickey Mouse by any means (and thus, the first deletion was made with mistaken reasons).
About Whistling in the Dark, assuming it's true the reigstry of the very specific version displayed is from 1931, at least I'd be grateful if someone adds "Undelete in 2027" on the file, so it can be used in seven months. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
I probably could have phrased my comment better, for which I apologize, but, TaronjaSatsuma, you mention both "a 91-year old Chinese work" and "95-year old songs" in a way that strongly suggests to me that you believe those are reasons for the work to be PD. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)reply
You're welcome, everything fine on my side.
About the lenghth: yes. The movie itself would have fallen into PD 30 years after being released under 1928 RoC law for corporate works (in 1944 law, the movie itself was PD by 10 years lenghth), and under PRC law it is not only PD, but the separate rights are ineligible when airing the movie itself as it was released -and still, corporate work: 30 years length. Copyright in RoC was about registration, so no separated regustry for a script or a musical score to be expected.
The song is messy (because it was not a Chinese work) but still: 95 years old (if the term is 100, then it's 100), but you can see how a discussion about the file is correcting some false conclusions of the first deletion proposal, such as the so-called Mickey. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment The character is not Mickey Mouse - multiple animation studios in the era had characters with vaguely similar appearance, including some that predated Mikey - so that should not be a factor. However if the audio was US recordings, they would not yet be PD per Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings as the term is 100 years, which has not yet passed. -- 19:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
But after hearing both versions, I have my doubts: the song as played in the movie (around minute 61) has whistling during the whole play, and also much more harder trumpets. The voice sounds clearly American, but I'm unsure about it being the specific recorded version (at least the one I linked). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Also, I asked Deepseek about this issue (it was about 1990 PRC law, but the reasoning is the same):
The core of your question lies in a key provision of Chinese copyright law. As we discussed, Article 15 (now Article 17 in the 2020 revision) grants a "separate use" right to the creators of a film's components:
"The authors of the script, musical works and other works that are included in a cinematographic work... and can be exploited separately shall be entitled to exercise their copyright independently."
The crucial, legally defined meaning of "separate use" is using the component work completely on its own, detached from the film.
"Separate use" includes:
Publishing the film's script as a standalone book.
Releasing the film's soundtrack on a CD or streaming service.
Licensing the main theme song for a commercial
"Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.
Support, with at most the Maine Stein and Whistling song muted (and all other American sound recordings made before 1926 present in-film, if any). As a side note, the PD-recording template says that audio in films does not have to be muted. Does that apply to the use of recordings? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why sound on a disc record and sound on a film strip would be subject to different rules, but I have no objection to undeletion in whole if the US audio copyright is as stated. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
In the US, movie audio was part of the movie from the start, but recordings on a disc record weren't copyrightable until 1972.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Still, "Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.
I may be mistaken, but the film as a whole, under the provisions in article 17, once is PD is fully PD. That does not mean someone can take the movie and use the plot to film a remake. But the film, as a whole work, is PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Maybe. But here we're talking about background music, so I guess every case will have some nuances. Also, some films will have their original script on PD, others maybe not...
The "cinematographic work" is PD, but the underlying screenplay is not that type of work and so (assuming that it was not made for hire) has a different term of protection. This is why the decision I linked to found that the "rights of the film Street Angel expired on ... 31 December 1987 [while] the ... rights of the script ... will expire on ... 31 December 2028." prospectprospekt (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)reply
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (1931).webm. File uploaded by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Abzeronow.
RoC copyright law of 1928 had a 30 years after publication copyright lenghth, RoC copyright law of 1944 included movies and gave 10 years after publication, and PRC's copyright law of 1990 gives 50 year after publication copyright term for movies. PRC 1990 did restore copyright for some works, but explicitally said it did not extend copyright for works whose term had expired. Anyway, the film was PD far before 1990 PRC copyright law was in effect.
It was assumed there was separately exploitable works. That figure exists in 1990 PRC copyright law, which does not apply to this file because the film was PD in the country back then. It was claimed the 1990 versions of PRC copyright did not recognize "work-for-hire", or did not clarify its copyright lenghth. But this movie was created during RoC, and RoC 1928 (and 1944) copyright did indeed recognize work-for-hire. So, undelete.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Also, I asked Deepseek about the Copyright of a movie under Chinese law, and how it relates to the screenwrite, music, etc. seprarate copyrights:
When you broadcast the film as a complete work, your direct legal counterparty is the producer (制片者) of the film. The Copyright Law vests the economic rights to the cinematic work as a whole in the producer. Since the producer's economic rights have expired, the film's status as a public domain (PD) cinematic work is clear. Under this specific act, you are not directly using the script or the musical score as separate, independent entities (whether as a book, a standalone lyric sheet, or an audio track).
For all of these reasons, plaintiffs copyright infringement claim must be returned to the District Court to afford an opportunity for further development of the record and a sensitive aggregate assessment by the fact-finder of the fair use factors in light of the applicable legal principles
Now I doubt if that means 30 secs of artworks are de minimis, as said in the case; or wasn't because it's the District Court to rule about it.
Also, I asked Deepseek about the District Court and said
The district court granted summary judgment to BET and HBO, dismissing Faith Ringgold's copyright infringement claim because it found their use of her “Church Picnic Story Quilt” poster as set decoration on the sitcom ROC was protected as fair use
Fair use is irrelevant to us (No fair-use in Commons) but:
Amount and substantiality of the portion used: The court determined this factor supported the defendants. The segments showing the poster were brief, often only a partial view, and even when most of the poster was visible, it was not in exact focus
Effect on the potential market for the work: The court found this factor also favored the defendants. It reasoned that the television episode is not a substitute for purchasing the poster, so there was little likelihood of a negative impact on poster sales. The court also noted that Ringgold could not demonstrate a negative impact on her licensing market over the four years since the episode had aired
And, to add more confusion:
Based on this analysis, the district court sustained the defendants' fair use defense and dismissed the case. The Second Circuit later reversed this decision, finding that summary judgment was not warranted and that further fact-finding was required
I request that the photograph be restored, as it was cropped after it was submitted for deletion. However, I didn't have time to comment on the page, hoping the Wikimedia Commons administrators would notice. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Support I can confirm that the site does state that the materials are available under a free licence CC-BY 4.0. My vote is not about the quality of the site, just what the licence is. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 16:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This was deleted as "exact or scaled down duplicate" of "Average per capita vegetable intake vs minimum recommended guidelines, 1961 to 2023, SOM.svg", which is clearly wrong somehow. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)08:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)reply
I deleted the last two. Text is not "a work of art", it is copyrighted as literary work. Does FoP in Macau actually cover it? First four have the issue that they are not permanently placed, they are temporarily displayed. Most jurisdictions (but not all) require it to be permanent. Also are casinos and restaurants "public places"? Abzeronow (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment Macau law does not define what is a public place, but existing kept cases suggest that publicly accessible interiors are generally treated as public places on Commons. JaydenChao (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Missed the opportunity to state my case (didnt get an email). I have personally made a rendition of the flag in Inkscape based on photographed sources of [4][5][6]. with exclusively and only using Public Domain designs File:KNLA Badge.svg made by user Albert Poliakoff (Under ((self|cc-zero))) and File:Flag_of_the_Karen_National_Union.svg made by Sshu94 (Under ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0))). Posted under self-CC. Due to the limited amount of pictures available of the group, I also took some creative liberties by hand (design, symbol, proportion, colors, and design constraint from reusing SVG assets stated in above) solely by using photos; such had made it fairly different to the actual flag of the Kawthoolei Army (the actual flag being: [7], ie. gradation, proportion, coloration, emblem being different). Due to the simplicity (consisting of simple shapes such as a canton], a half-circle, three stripes (with its base proportions from user Sshu94), and the public domain emblem design made by Albert Poliakoff derived from the KNLA, it should also be under PD-flag) and nature of fully reusing public domain designs made by other users in Commons, this deletion should be reverted. Other flags with the same or more complexity are seen listed PD under SVG flags of Myanmar. Kaliper1 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Reason: The file was Speedy deleted (SD) by Túrelio as Copyvio, per [8], Macau's ToO is relatively high. (單純具紀錄價值之照片，尤其係文字作品、文件、商業文件、技術繪圖及類似物品之照片，均不受保護。 English: “Photographs possessing merely documentary value, especially photographs of written works, documents, commercial documents, technical drawings, and similar items, shall not be protected.”) JaydenChao (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment, not sure how this Article 149(2) relates to Macau having high TOO. The article is just simply stating photographs "documenting" other 2D works does not have additional copyright, similar to the concepts of {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-scan}}. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose The two files have no upload information except a category -- no source, no author, no license. While {{SobreiraLic}} contains all of that, it apparently confused the bot that does patrolling. The template also has far more information, mostly not needed, than is required in a license template which could simply be replaced with CC-BY-SA. I might suggest that the template should be deleted -- I see that you have used it 461 times, but there are bots that will do the replacement. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm speaking about using the name of the files for uploading a new version, not about the license. The license and other data was forgotten because they were the first two files uploaded by the bot, as the name "A Guarda" could suggest, but was used (of fixed to be used) in other 3700 files. The name of the file I'm asking would be consistent with the one of other maps, which are expected to be automatically used in templates for those placenames. Otherwise I would be forced to upload it to the language project, which I consider absurd. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 18:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi: It was deleted rather instantaneously, with no discussion. The flag is NOT out of scope, as it can be used to highlight the flag of Hermosillo (in the template of place articles, where there is a flag option most commonly used in Wikipedia). It is NOT fake as there are numerous images documenting its use under the municipal government, such as [9]. The PD-Coa-Mexico, as found on the respective page for the Nation's flag, covers the usage of municipal symbols; flags are NOT considered eligible for copyright protection. Flagvisioner (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
So why wouldn't it? "This file depicts the coat of arms, banner, or emblem of Mexico, one of its states, municipalities, or any other political subdivision... these coats of arms/banners/emblems are not eligible for protection under the federal copyright law." We know it is basically just a depiction of the Hermosillo municipal symbol, which was officially adopted by law.
Even with the case the flag is technically unofficial, you can't copyright it because it's used by the municipality as a "banner of the municipality". If a resident made up his own municipal flag, that would be eligible for copyright; this is not one of them. Flagvisioner (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Even if it is OK in Mexico to change the copyright status by de facto use (I am not convinced, however), we may still have a problem with US status. Was this emblem (1) PD in Mexico before the URAA date (1.1.1996) or (2) used as an integral part of any legal act (legal acts and their translations are PD in US)? Ankry (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The symbol itself, it is known it was adopted in 1961 as articles show [10]. Since there's not more complexity than the white background (as I think US law would interpret it), I think it would be fine. A bit strange to me how copyright law is, fine in the home country but possibly not the US... Flagvisioner (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply
This is how generally most law works: the legal system of one country does not depend on the law in another country. The exceptions to this rule in copyright law are the rule of shorter term (rejected by US) and URAA. Ankry (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)reply
According to zh:File:Taichung City Government LOGO.svg, it is an abstract logo of Taichung Park Lake Pavilion, with texts of "臺中市政府" and "Taichung City Government". It was copyrighted once, but it changed on 26 August 2025, when the government law, 臺中市市旗制式及使用要點, was released. The "Taichung Park Lake Pavilion" logo is therefore legalised, at least something below COM:TOO Taiwan since it looks the same as the logo in the law. The "臺中市政府" and "Taichung City Government" texts are below COM:TOO Taiwan. Also, shouldn't their AI file be seen as a resource that was released under the GWOIA? --Saimmx (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nothing in {{PD-ROC-exempt}} indicates that logos are exempt from copyright. As indicated in that template "official documents" is not the same as "everything created by government officials", it refers to specific types of content. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
By the means of "official documents" in "PD-ROC-exempt", I mean the law of "臺中市市旗制式及使用要點" - The article 3 describs:
I am unsure why you believed that the emblem is not exempted even the law described, maybe may because I mistranslated the context. If you believe that the "attached image" is not enough because it didn't say the "Lake Pavilion image" is the emblem of Taichung, we can add {{PD-ineligible}} as well, since they aren't really different between the "emblem of Taichung" and the "attached image" of "Lake Pavilion image". Saimmx (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment@The Squirrel Conspiracy, The objection is correct in principle: {{PD-ROC-exempt}} does not exempt a logo merely because it was created, published, or used by a government agency. The relevant question is whether the particular design was formally prescribed or approved pursuant to law and therefore constitutes an official document within the meaning of Article 9 of the Copyright Act.
The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office addressed this distinction in Electronic Mail No. 1091104. It explained that, where the form of a ministry, agency, or bureau emblem is prescribed pursuant to law, the officially prescribed design is excluded from copyright protection under Article 9. Electronic Mail No. 1110516 states the point even more explicitly: a design that has been officially approved and prescribed pursuant to law may be regarded as a type of official document and is therefore not protected by copyright.
In this case, 臺中市市旗制式及使用要點 is formally classified in the Taichung City legislation database as an administrative rule. The database lists 臺中市市旗設計說明.pdf as a graphic annex to that rule. Point 3 prescribes the appearance of the flag "as shown in the attached figure", while point 4 requires the flag to be produced in accordance with points 2 and 3 using an electronic final artwork. The particular Lake Pavilion graphic shown in the annex is therefore not merely a logo published on a government website; it forms part of the officially prescribed flag design.
However, this does not establish that every earlier Taichung City Government logo or every variation of the Lake Pavilion symbol is exempt. Each deleted file should be compared separately with the design contained in the graphic annex:
File:Taichung City Government emblem.jpg may be restored if it contains the same Lake Pavilion graphic prescribed in the annex, with only the plain wording "臺中市政府" and "Taichung City Government" added. In that case, the prescribed graphic may fall within {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, while the ordinary textual elements and any sufficiently simple arrangement may additionally fall within {{PD-ineligible}}.
File:Taichung City Government symbol 2010.svg may be restored on the same basis if an administrator confirms that it is a faithful vector reproduction of the same prescribed graphic and does not introduce any independently copyrightable additions or materially alter the design.
I therefore support restoration subject to confirmation that the deleted files faithfully reproduce the Lake Pavilion graphic contained in the legal annex and contain no additional copyrightable elements. This is a limited argument based on the legally prescribed design, not a claim that all government logos are automatically exempt from copyright. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room)07:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Reason: The flag design is formally prescribed by the Taichung City Government's administrative rule, 臺中市市旗制式及使用要點 (Directions Governing the Specifications and Use of the Taichung City Flag).
This is not merely an image published on a government website. The official legislation database expressly lists 臺中市市旗設計說明.pdf under "圖表附件" (graphic annexes) to the administrative rule. Point 3 of the rule provides that the style of the flag is "as shown in the attached figure", while point 4 requires the flag to be manufactured in accordance with points 2 and 3 using an electronic final artwork.
The annex therefore forms an integral and normative part of the administrative rule: it determines the prescribed appearance, proportions, placement, dimensions and colour specifications of the official city flag. It is not a separate promotional illustration or an unrelated government-created logo.
The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office has also explained in Electronic Mail No. 1110516 that, where the form of a government emblem or flag is prescribed pursuant to law, the officially approved design is regarded as a type of official document and is excluded from copyright protection under Article 9 of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, the prescribed flag design falls within {{PD-ROC-exempt}}.
This magazine does not have a valid copyright notice on it you can see it here The link provided in the deletion request appear to be unrelated to the magazine 999REAL💬⬆00:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The defective copyright notice is on the table of contents page page which also contains the masthead the notice can not be just anywhere there are a limited number of valid locations 999REAL💬⬆16:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The locations may not be unlimited, but that link is far from showing all the locations. To quote the US Copyright Office's Copyright Compendium, in this case chapter 2200:[11]
2207.1(A) Literary Works Published in Book Form
In the case of works published in book form, a notice is acceptable if it appears on the
copies in any of the following positions:
• The title page, if any.
• The page immediately following the title page, if any.
• Either side of the front cover, if any, or if there is no front cover, on either side of the
front leaf of the copies.
• Either side of the back cover, if any, or if there is no back cover, either side of the
back leaf of the copies.
• The first page of the main body of the work.
• The last page of the main body of the work.
• Any page between the front page and the first page of the main body of the work, if
(i) there are no more than ten pages between the front page and the first page of the
main body of the work, and (ii) the notice is reproduced prominently and is set
apart from the other matter on the page where it appears.
• Any page between the last page of the main body of the work and the back page, if
(i) there are no more than ten pages between the last page of the main body of the
work and the back page, and (ii) the notice is reproduced prominently and is set
apart from the other matter on the page where it appears.
2207.1(E) Periodicals or Other Serials
The notice for a work published as an issue of a periodical or other serial may be
acceptable if it appears in any of the locations discussed in Section 2207.1(A) or if it is
located:
• As part of, or adjacent to, the masthead, or on the page containing the masthead; or
• Adjacent to a prominent heading, appearing at or near the front of the issue,
containing the title of the periodical or other serial and any combination of the
volume and issue number and date of the issue.
Chapter 2200 is for 1978-89 not before 1978 here you can see full scans of many issues from the publisher through the 1980s they all have the defective copyright notice on the table of contents page and none have a valid copyright notice for the magazine anywhere 999REAL💬⬆09:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak support While I can't find a full scan of this exact issue, looking through the May 1976 issue, there is indeed no valid copyright notice for the magazine. The chances that a publisher realized they were putting defective copyright notices on their magazines and started putting valid copyright notices on this specific issue and forgot how to do proper copyright notices for the next decade and a half are near zero. The limited scans of the July issue do strongly suggest they never affixed a proper copyright notice. Based5290 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Deleted as having no licence since 2025. The logo itself (for the Russian branch of the Dynamo fitness club) is public domain from the 1920s and was created by the Soviet government. --Edward Werner (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The letter "D" was not created by the Soviet government and can not be copyrighted but is there a photo from the 1920s with this particular version of the logo in use? Thuresson (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The letter "D" was not created by the Soviet government but the letter in that particular font was (there's a cursive 'Dynamo' wordmark that also uses it and also dates from those days). In either case, 'blue D in a diamond' is shorthand for fitness and everybody in Moscow, Kyiv, Bilhorod, and Dnipro knows it. Edward Werner (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The only addition consists of the words, "Club Dynamo" in a generic sans serif typeface (likely Arial). The "D" is far more original (counting by work put in) than the words added; of course, it's become partly genericised, more an iconic pictogram than a corporate logo of a transnational non-profit, but regardless. Ditto for the cursive wordmark. Edward Werner (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
If you take the position that this exact logo is copyrighted, you'd have to do the same for File:Dynamo logo.svg as well—that one is used by a for-profit (i.e. the Dynamo Kyiv FC team), and likewise zero original work has been put in apart from the addition of the word 'Kyiv' in a generic typeface. Edward Werner (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
It was claimed that this logo, not the letter D, is from the 1920s so I would like to see a photo from the 1920s with this specific logo, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
If the "D" is the only thing with some degree of originality and the rest of the logo is composed simply by two words in Arial, then the only thing that matters is the copyright of the "D", @Edward Werner here demostrates that it's in PD, unless someone can prove the opposite then this means that the whole logo is in PD, you don't get a new copyright simply by adding two words in a standard typeface. Friniate (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)reply
You agree that the only part of the logo which is creative, is in PD-old
You agree that the part that is not PD-old, is not creative enough and therefore is PD-text logo
But you think that from the union of two elements that are in PD, a new copyright can be formed? AFAIK this idea goes against long established practice both here on Commons and in RL, do you have a legal precedent supporting this idea?
The issue is not whether the entire file can be described as “a text logo” in isolation. The copyright question should be whether the version in File:Динамо.svg contains any copyrightable authorship beyond the already old/public-domain Dynamo “Д” emblem.
As far as I understand the file, the only arguably creative element is the historical “Д” emblem. The added wording «ОБЩЕСТВО ДИНАМО» appears to be ordinary text in a standard sans-serif typeface, with no independent graphic treatment beyond ordinary placement. A new copyright is not created merely by adding uncopyrightable text to a public-domain emblem, unless the selection, coordination, or arrangement itself contains sufficient original authorship.
This is also consistent with the U.S. approach in Feist, where copyright in a compilation or arrangement extends only to original selection/coordination/arrangement and not to public-domain or uncopyrightable underlying elements. Likewise, Satava v. Lowry is useful for the point that copyright cannot be used to reclaim public-domain or standard elements by combining them without a protectable original contribution.
So the question I would ask is: what specific copyrightable authorship is alleged to exist in File:Динамо.svg apart from the old “Д” emblem and the plain words «ОБЩЕСТВО ДИНАМО»? If no such authorship can be identified, restoration under a combination of PD-old for the emblem and PD-textlogo / below-TOO reasoning for the added text seems appropriate. Edward Werner (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Support It appears that parts of this logo are PD-old and other parts are PD-textlogo, whether or not combining two of these PD elements generates new copyright can be figured out after undeleting it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 16:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
However, I doubt that all this stuff still falls within Commons:Project scope. Given the length of the list, I get the impression that it’s rather promotional. Please only restore the images if an educational purpose can be clearly approved. Otherwise, please let me know briefly, and I’ll inform the client.
@Mussklprozz: I don't know, I didn't check. What you could do: 1. Ask the client; 2. Search the Internet for references about these films; 3. If there are references, then the files could be undeleted, at least temporarily, to check if they match real posters. Yann (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd like to request (temporary, at least) undeletion of the following 30 files, which had been speedy deleted after nomination by User:Whyiseverythingalreadyused, because I am suspecting that most of them are not copyvio as below COM:TOO Japan.
Support Most logos should be discussed in regular deletion requests instead of skipping discussion in the form of speedy deletion, because there is a good chance that they are below TOO. This is especially true for file pages with {{PD-textlogo}} and its variants (I don't know if these file paged had it, though). We could undelete these and recommend regular deletion requests, or we could use this venue to review (after temporary undeletion). whym (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Speedy deletion is for extreme cases only. This is not it. I think that the job of admin is to lessen the amount of work that other users need to do, not to increase it by such speedy actions. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 16:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello everyone! I am submitting a request to restore this file, along with File:"Dustlik" award by Ismat Kuchiev 01.jpg. Here is the situation: the file was originally set up with a Flickr license and uploaded to that site by the author; later, the file was deleted, and he submitted a restoration request to VRT. He was informed that the issue wasn't the license itself but the file's setup, and that it needed to be re-uploaded using Commons:Flickr2Commons. I asked the volunteer who replied to his email—on her talk page—which step would be best to take now; she suggested that I could either submit a restoration request or re-upload it using the previously suggested method. I wanted to re-upload it directly, but for some reason, the site breaks whenever I try to log in. That is why I am submitting my request here. Please help with these files. --Mizgel (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The photo is low, non-original quality. If it was published by the photographer in Flickr under a free license, please provide a link to it in Flickr. If it is your own photo, please upload its original version from your camera. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Concerning the other image, we need an evidence of free license for the orden and its document or an evidence of their copyright status. IF {{PD-UZ-exempt}} applies to them, please, explain why. Ankry (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It was precisely because of such suspicions that Vyacheslav Golubev personally wrote a letter to VRT; this letter was reviewed by the user @Lvova, but she indicated that a reinstatement request needed to be submitted—which is what I did. I ask you to please re-examine all the information. Mizgel (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Yann: what can I do additionally as a VRT agent in this situation, what's your idea? As you, I can check whether this photo was published before; if it is the first publication, VRT gives nothing, just an e-mail. There is no any additional proof, no any additional responsibility, just more work for the overloaded system with no reason. Анастасия Львоваru/en22:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Lvova: I am fine if you are satisfied with the answer given by the client on VRT. I don't have VRT access anymore, so I trust you on that matter. Yann (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Reason: It appears like it was mistakenly tagged. It was not published elsewhere as far as I can see, and it was attributed to the uploader on the file page. I don't see why this needed to be deleted as "no permission". I asked Shizhao for explanation, but they did not respond.
In general, a VRT email is redundant if a work is first published on Commons, and attributed to the uploader. whym (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure reasonable doubt is enough for doing speedy deletion. Maybe turn it into a regular deletion request (after undeleting it)? whym (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Solicito retirar la etiqueta de borrado rápido CSD F10 para este archivo. La imagen es una fotografía promocional y representativa del artista musical ElMenderr (Q140644141), utilizada para su identificación enciclopédica en su elemento de Wikidata. El archivo cumple con los criterios de relevancia enciclopédica y cuenta con las licencias correspondientes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maesst (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
start of English translation / comienzo de traducción inglesa
@Maesst tell me: why does it appear that you, the temporary account ~2026-40968-93 on Wikidata, and the temporary account ~2026-40855-27 are the same person?
Hello Yann and Jim,
Thank you for your patience. To resolve the sourcing concern, I will simplify my request and rely solely on the one reference that is clearly and verifiably in the public domain: the U.S. Library of Congress Matson Photograph Collection (LC-DIG-matpc-21514, dated October 4, 1941): https://www.loc.gov/resource/matpc.21514/. This collection is held by a U.S. federal institution, is marked "No known restrictions on publication," and is widely used on Wikimedia Commons as a public domain source.
I withdraw the reference to the family photograph and the Palestinian magazine photo, since I cannot establish their exact publication date and photographer with certainty, and I understand this is required for derivative works.
The portrait itself remains an original artwork: I created the charcoal background and the colored figure myself, using the Library of Congress photograph as visual reference only — not tracing or reproducing it directly. I am the sole author and copyright holder of the resulting composite work, which I release under CC BY-SA 4.0.
I would appreciate it if the file could be reconsidered on this simplified and verifiable basis. Please let me know if any further clarification is needed.
Best regards,
Gmyazbeckk
Gmyazbeckk (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'm renominating this because the closing rationale here from the previous undeletion request is clearly incorrect: You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the Content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, or distribution of User Submissions […] That includes the CC BY-SA 3.0 license that's expressly permitted on the source page. HyperAnd [talk] 09:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose The quote above applies only to the restrictions in the sentence that contains it. The whole license, which I quoted in my previous close of this, contains other, similar restrictions to which the phrase above does not apply. The license is very sloppy drafting, but we must read it as it is constructed and not as we wish it were. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I've read it again, the ToU defines "Content" as excluding User Submissions: The content on the Newgrounds Website, except all User Submissions (as defined below), including without limitation, the text, software, scripts (except where explicitly stated), graphics, photos, sounds, music, videos, interactive features and the like ("Content") […] Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners. Again, the "other than expressly permitted" is still there: You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the Content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, or distribution of User Submissions of third parties obtained through the Website for any commercial purposes. Down to the "User Submissions" section, they affirm that For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. That means that users still retain copyright to their works and can distribute them in any non-exclusive license, including Creative Commons. Newgrounds's Creative Commons integration just makes doing this easier. Also pinging @Ankry from the previous deletion request. HyperAnd [talk] 19:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
While the prewious UDR duiscussion showed that there is no copyright problem here, the main doubt was related to scope. I am Neutral in this matter. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Further more, per my comment at w:Talk:Shotacon#Why I uploaded SFL, none of the images were promotional, I just couldn't find a non-fan art, freely licensed examples of lolicon and shotacon, so I asked permission from an artist who has a high quality (as in drawing skill, not just resolution) comic with OCs. So, in addition to what Isaac said, undelete the following:
Support procedural undelete because the speedy deletion rationale is clearly invalid. If there is a legal concern these should be marked as “deleted for legal reasons” or something. Dronebogus (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I can also Support restoring all the files. While, I definitely feel some, if not most of these files, may need to be deleted. A proper DR should have been open. The way that all these files where blindly speed deleted with a rationale of promotion doesn't fit the situation. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
For any admins that may close this (incl. Yann, Jim and Abzero), if you're not going to undelete the files, then specify what exact guideline do they break, because G10 is clearly invalid (I even went out of my way to remove the QR code before using the file in an article) and I don't see any other reason for GPSLeo to delete the files other than COM:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh, and the license is valid too. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 10:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not sure how tagging images under G10, deleting them immediately afterwards (speedy is supposed to be a two-part process) with no further explanation and reporting me to ANU is okay, despite me uploading it for educational purposes (there are no similar files on Commons) and deliberately choosing to crop the QR code for the article image. Leo is now threatened with a potential deadminship because of this.
Consensus on Wikipedia means nothing when we're talking about Commons policies. The images were deleted erroneously and have to be undeleted procedurally, yet it's been almost a week and this hasn't been done. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The consensus is very specific regarding the labels and tags being used on the en wiki page. Most of the images definitely blur into CSAM lines, as shotacon is described as such. I have expressed that I can support them being restored; the Speed deletion rationale did not fit this situation. However, deletion requests should be opened for the files that blur the line. Just because I personally Commons:IDONTLIKEIT these files. However, that is not grounds for deletion. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We have one policy called COM:CSAM that doesn't mention lolicon in any way whatsoever. The definition of CSAM specifically refers to material involving real children, which the erroneously deleted images are not. You can't physically abuse a fictional character.
Dabmasterars, first, I don't have to give a policy based reason for my opinion. Second, in the United States, lolicon is very problematic. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess, receive, distribute, produce, or possess with intent to distribute obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children – even when the images do not involve actual minors.
"(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
"knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting..."
Pinging every other admin because this is getting ridiculous. More than a week of inaction on what is a clearly erroneous deletion, with other admins refusing to act with no policy-based reason.
Oh, and the ANU Leo did on me for being a vandal despite my contribution history and clear educational motive? Archived. I'm innocent now. You may proceed doing what should've been done a week ago.
Pinging @Ziv and @The Squirrel Conspiracy. I swear, this discussion is driving me nuts. Any out of scope or legal argument I have already debunked, and the speedy deletion by Leo was clearly erroneous. The files should've been undeleted immediately, but here we are. Literally no admins here do their purpose, refusing to commit to any action due to non-policy related reasons or reasons already debunked. Please be better than this. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 10:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm acknowledging the ping. I definitely will collect my thoughts on this, since this is a topic that requires nuance, and I definitely feel conflicted (I'm still debating on how much I want to discuss about that conflicted feeling.) Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose I've given this some thought, and I would not want to restore these for two reasons, one personal and one that takes into account feedback I received at Wikimania. The personal reason is that I have a friend who would be triggered by this art, and I absolutely will not take any action that I believe would hurt them, this is a red line for me. The other reason is that while I don't believe this is CSAM in the US, this would definitely be considered CSAM in other countries and thus I would not wish to subject reusers to legal problems, and the feedback I received at Wikimania is that Scope matters a great deal, and ultimately these pornographic images do not serve an educational purpose, and I do not want to force a WMF lawyer to defend this in court in a country in which this art is considered illegal. I am sorry to disappoint the requestor and those who want this undeleted due to their viewpoint on self-censorship on Commons, but I'd rather we not restore this. Abzeronow (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, you did certaintly disappoint me. Citing your friend and laws of other countries is definitely a defense of all time. First, the "legality" question only applies to the US, as it is where the Commons servers are hosted. By your logic, we should ban all pornography because they're illegal in some countries. Second, I have outlined the specific use cases for the images above (such as showing lolisho or straight shota; yiff has subgenres, so why shouldn't lolicon), so your "out of scope" argument is moot. And, third, your friend not liking the images is clearly not a valid excuse. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 10:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It is the acceptance that lolicon is OK in the USA that is disappointing. If you Google "lolicon" you will see quite a few opinions from US lawyers that lolicon is problematic - that aggressive prosecutors might bring a case against anyone who touches it. That case might or might not succeed, but it is certainly not a risk we should be taking. WP has not yet run afoul of the current US Federal Administration, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did, so why give them an opening for legal harassment?
I also think it is inappropriate to attack Abzeronow. He has given us honest and straightforward reasons why he will not restore these, which is better than simply sitting silent by the sidelines. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm constructively criticizing the reasons provided for not undeleting the files as being non-policy-compliant, as well as GPSLeo's actions regarding the files. I don't have any gripes with any of the admins here. If I did, then my language would be a lot less formal. In fact, I don't blame any one of you for being biased. Lolicon is a controversial topic, with most other platforms deleting this stuff anyway regardless of local laws due to fear of controversy. But we are not most platforms. We have clear policies and guidelines, and there is nothing stating that such content is banned and should be deleted without warning on sight (which Leo did). Just because you're disappointed in lolicon doesn't mean it should be unilaterally deleted. If you think it still somehow violates the policies, then just start a regular deletion request after undeleting or, alternatively, start an RFC (ping me in latter case). Let us gather consensus first. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Some pornography is in scope, that I can agree with. You might not be aware of it, but WMF undertook an office action to take down a video that was legal in the United States that graphically shows someone being beheaded, this was done on the request of the Australian government. I'm trying to get a report of that takedown that is similar to the DMCA Office Action reports. The video was considered illegal in Australia. These images are considered CSAM in Australia per en:Child pornography laws in Australia. We now live in a world where we cannot just consider legality in the United States, and must carefully consider the educational value of these files. It may not be enough for a court of law that there are potential use cases in illustrating a concept that is very sensitive and whose legality varies considerably. So the scope question is at the heart of this.
My friend has PTSD, this is not merely thinking that they will dislike this content, I'm thinking about if they somehow came across it, which I realize is unlikely, it would cause them emotional distress. I guess I should have made that explicit. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I do remember that discussion. I think that deletion was completely unwarranted too. It shouldn't matter if the request was done by a random angry guy or a whole government, we shouldn't censor things that aren't violating policies and/or guidelines. I am at least glad we can agree on one part - Australian government sucks. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 23:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't oppose the the deletions, but bringing your friend hypothetically being likely to be triggered by the contents of the images is not an especially relevant or cogent rationale for them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In fact, literally no admin here so far used an actual argument against undeleting the files other than the stuff I have already disproven or non-policy-based reasons. The fact that this thread is still going despite what should be an immediate undeletion says a lot about the participating admins. I don't blame anyone not liking these images due to their subjective preferences, but Commons operates on a set of objective policies and guidelines, none of which have been violated when uploading the files. There have even been discussions about a potential compromise, such as undeleting the files but then nominating them for deletion for a proper consensus-driven review (which I am not opposed for), but even these proposals did not go through for, once again, non-policy-based reasons.
If we were going to try to abide by every country's rules all the time we wouldn't be able to upload a vast swath of educational content. Offensive content is illegal in many jurisdictions, explicit content, religiously blasphemous content, Nazi symbols, communist symbols...
On its own merits here we should be consistent about it whatever way we go. I don't care what way, but unless we delete all lolicon/shotacon, why delete these? Didn't Wales and Sanger have some whole dispute about lolicon where Sanger tried to report us to the FBI? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Good call. Pornography is banned in a bunch of African/Middle Eastern countries, yet Commons still hosts them, due to American laws (which also say that lolicon is legal per w:Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). And Wales actually had to revoke his own administrator rights after the subsequent backlash. Also, the Wikipe-tan lolicon images he deleted were then restored per consensus that "Wales is not an absolute monarch". So we even have a precedent that suggestive lolicon is allowed. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 20:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support, in total agreement with Dabmasterars. We have multiple precedents on Commons that this kind of drawing is acceptable and is not considered CSAM, like the famous File:LoliWikipetan.jpg case. It is also legal in the United States, where Wikimedia Commons is hosted. Even if a deletion is warranted, that should be the result of an actual deletion discussion and consensus, and not speedy deletion, which was clearly wrong. And if the reason for deletion is that it is considered wrong, illegal or whatever, then that should be decided on an RFC where all images of the kind would be deleted. Otherwhise, as said above by PARAKANYAA, "unless we delete all lolicon/shotacon, why delete these?". For other users, please try not to be emotional about this topic and instead bring factual rationales. Skyshifter (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Both images are taken directly from the Allgemeine Informationssicherheitsrichtlinie (AISR) des Regierungsrates für die kantonale Verwaltung of the Canton of Zurich, adopted by the Government Council on 16 April 2025 as part of Regierungsratsbeschluss No. 438/2025.
The AISR is not a promotional publication but a binding governmental directive and an official act of the Government Council of the Canton of Zurich. The two graphics are integral parts of this official act and directly illustrate the governance structure and implementation model established by the AISR. Under Article 5 of the Swiss Copyright Act, laws, ordinances, other official acts, and decisions, protocols and reports of public authorities are not protected by copyright.
Wikimedia Commons provides {{PD-Switzerland-official}} specifically for images from Swiss or cantonal laws, ordinances, other official acts, decisions, protocols or reports by public authorities.
For the U.S. copyright status, {{PD-EdictGov}} also appears applicable because the AISR is an administrative governmental act and official legal material issued by a cantonal government.
If the files are restored, I will amend both file description pages to provide the exact official source, author («Regierungsrat des Kantons Zürich»), date, and the appropriate public-domain tags.
I therefore request restoration of both files so that their source and copyright information can be corrected accordingly.
Deutsch: Für den Antrag der Undeletion möchte ich nicht meine Meinung sprechen lassen, sondern fachlich begründete Zweifel an der rechtlichen Kompatibilität zwischen CC-Lizenzen und den Nutzungsbedingungen der sogenannten „sozialen Netzwerke“ anführen. Hierbei wird unter anderem ausgeführt, dass eine Sublizenzierung mit CC-Lizenzen (außer CC0) NICHT erlaubt ist, solange der Urheber nicht explizit zur Sublizenzierung zugestimmt hat. Ich möchte hier auch nicht drauf eingehen, ob nicht eine weite Verbreitung von Commons-Medien das Ziel sein soll, sondern alleine die rechtliche Einschätzung:
„Fazit: Zusammenfassend lässt sich feststellen [...] Inhalte, die von Dritten unter CC freigegeben wurden, darf man jedoch nicht ohne Weiteres eigenständig auf Facebook hochladen – hierfür wären die Zustimmungen der Lizenzgeber*innen beziehungsweise Urheber*innen des Materials erforderlich beziehungsweise nachzuweisen.“
„Bei fremden Inhalten kann ich die von Facebook vorgesehene Rechtseinräumung nicht vornehmen, da Creative-Commons-Lizenzen keine Unterlizenzierung gestatten. Bei Verwendung eines Creative-Commons-lizenzierten Fotos kann ich die Nutzungsbedingungen von Facebook also formal gesehen nicht erfüllen.“
Es soll auch nicht darum gehen, ob Facebook-Nutzer eine richtige Namensnennung anwenden, etc., sondern alleine um die fragwürdige Rechtmäßigkeit der über die CC-Lizenz hinausgehen Erlaubnisse an den Plattformbetreiber. Diese Rechte haben Dritte wohl nicht.
English: Regarding the request for undeletion, I do not aim to express my personal opinion, but rather to raise professionally grounded doubts about the legal compatibility between CC licenses and the terms of use of so-called “social networks.” Among other things, it is stated here that sublicensing under CC licenses (except CC0) is NOT permitted unless the author has explicitly consented to sublicensing. I do not wish to discuss here whether the goal should be the widespread distribution of Commons media, but rather focus solely on the legal assessment:
“Conclusion: In summary, it can be stated [...] that content shared by third parties under a Creative Commons license may not be uploaded to Facebook on one’s own initiative without further ado—this would require the consent of the licensors or the creators of the material, or proof of such consent.”
"When it comes to third-party content, I cannot grant the rights as specified by Facebook, since Creative Commons licenses do not permit sublicensing. Therefore, when using a Creative Commons-licensed photo, I cannot, strictly speaking, comply with Facebook's terms of use.”
Nor is the issue whether Facebook users use proper attribution, etc., but solely the questionable legality of the permissions granted to the platform operator that go beyond the CC license. Third parties presumably do not have these rights.
As the sublicensing policy applies to many "social" media platforms, this can be extended to other "social" media platforms (without exceptions like some Mastodon servers or so). So I think, Commons uploaders who are also copyright holders should be allowed in templates to emphasize the legal problems with these problems.
Also, I know there is this statement. Of course, TOU do not override copyright rules, but when a user who is not authorized to upload CC BY SA works does so, this is a copyright violation as he has not all necessary rights to do so (like on other copyright violations). Also, the sublicensing affects elements like using for AI training where crediting and other license conditions are certainly not met. With the violation during upload, a correct credit AFTER the upload does not "erase" the violation. And Social media has become a ubiquitous and important way to share works that are part of the commons so that others may have access to them and be able to reuse them. is not an argument to override legal rules. Having free-licensed works does not make it "ok" to upload them on closed systems which are also toxic and a lot of fake. All in all, I have big doubts that it would work, also I am missing legal arguments on the aforementioned page. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment when someone uploads CC-BY(-SA) licensed work to Facebook, and provides attribution in the description, nothing happening. If Facebook would use such work separatelly (for example, for AI training or on help pages) without attribution, it would be violation, but violating party would be Facebook itself. Theoretically, Facebook can prohibit uploading third-party works without necessary (for Facebook) rights, but it isn't our problem. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Files in Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted, Buildings only
Here is, I think, a complete list of all the files that are listed in the category cited above, including those in DRs that called out a whole category. I have not looked at any of them, so presumably there are some that are not architecture. I have removed duplicates.
The next step will be to restore all of them, using Restore-a-lot and then create a gallery from the list. Then put the gallery into Visual File Change and examine them, deleting those that do not qualify as architecture. I will do all of that tomorrow.
QUESTION -- does the new law follow most other countries and apply only to exterior architecture?
735 files from Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted
@KMB1933 the discussion hasn't yet concluded due to the possible restriction imposed by the executive regulations, that could theoretically cover all exceptions from Article 26 to 36, including Article 29(2) or the architectural FoP clause. Pinging @جيمي and Clindberg: for attention. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions)23:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
See discussion. @The Squirrel Conspiracy deleted the old revisions despite me verifying that the green concrete was not a part of vanilla minecraft, as the screenshot was taken before the first mod release for 1.12 (which added the concrete blocks).
I believe these two files were deleted in error, nominated for deletion by Gbawden because they thought them unlikely to be the uploader's own work. The uploader, Lapin74jp, has clearly scanned a few of their old photos and listed his own name as the author, which is consistent across all of their uploads which are themselves consistent with photos taken by a French F1 fan (=not a professional photographer) in the 1970s. I see no reason not to assume good faith.
Are you able to clarify how I can fix the issue you have flagged? Would changing the license help?
Do you otherwise have suggestions for how I can usefully visually report on project activities which used commercial software - in this case, Google Meet.
Are you able to clarify how I can fix the issue you have flagged? Would changing the license help?
Do you otherwise have suggestions for how I can usefully visually report on project activities which used commercial software - in this case, Google Slides.
The image depicts a series of basic wireframe prototypes built in Google Slides, designed by stakeholders as part of an online interactive workshop.
Oppose Perhaps I am missing something, but only one of the twelve screens here might be as you describe. I also see photographs of a coin or medal, a bone (I think), and an elaborate doorway, perhaps a palace or cathedral. The rest of the screens are blank. The three photographs would all need licenses from their photographers, but I don't see how this is in scope -- certainly we are here to support WM projects, but this doesn't look anything like your description. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Jim, as above I'm commenting as I'm involved in the project. The twelve images that make up the collage have different titles, labelling, buttons, and descriptions to explain what the features do. The wireframes are still useful without illustrative use of models.
@Nebulousflynn: do you have more info on the four screenshots of the models included? De minimus may come into play, but if we can establish the details that would help.
Reason: I respectfully request the undeletion of File:China Entertainment.png.
I believe that the G10 speedy deletion criterion was applied incorrectly. The file was not uploaded for the purpose of advertising, promoting, or soliciting customers for a commercial product or service.
The image was intended to serve an illustrative and informational purpose. It is not a commercial advertisement, does not contain a commercial offer, pricing information, contact information, or a call to purchase a product or service.
I therefore respectfully ask for the deletion to be reviewed and the file to be restored. If there are any concerns regarding the file's source, description, or licensing information, I am willing to provide additional information and correct the file page as necessary.
Thank you for pointing that out. I apologize for the previous inappropriate edit regarding the Facebook page. However, I was hoping to use the file strictly for non-promotional, educational context. If this is still considered ineligible under the scope guidelines, I understand and accept the deletion. Lmc050704 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Supporting arguments were based on 'just not notable', as the subject's WP article was deleted years ago
Also 'fake' on the basis that the event claimed never took place (it did, there's more than one of them, explaining the assumed error in the EXIF date and location)
"Personal vanity selfie"
Closed as "per nomination" which the admin clarifies as 'unused implies out of scope'.
None of these are applicable reasons here. I should not have to explain to admins that NOTINUSE is not a valid deletion reason. Nor is WP:NOTABLE.
The reason for keeping this is nothing to do with Peter Pratts (whom I agree, has not demonstrated any notability). Instead it's about Beautycon, and such contests in general. A US contest including male beauty and cosmetics. Hosted in Texas, generally thought of as a hotbed of machismo. WP's beauty contest has little coverage of male beauty contests beyond "they exist". So it's something of a surprise to see this image. An exceptional occurrence, thus one that puts itself into SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Although the file descdription reads:
"Peter Pratts attends Beautycon March 19 2016"
There is nothing in this portrait taken in an automobile that has any connection to Beautycon. It is a vanity image from person who has no other contributions to Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Are you claiming (as argued in the DR) that there was no Beautycon? Otherwise I see the evidence here (circumstantial, but convincing) that someone heavily made up in a car in Dallas in March 2016 could indeed be on their way to Beautycon there, as claimed. I'd prefer an image on stage for a better context, but this is also a close-up (and that's relevant here) we're unlikely to get in an on-stage photo.
There is no policy that vanity selfies should be deleted. It's not a reason to keep them, for that reason alone, but it doesn't invalidate images that are in scope for other reasons.
I still consider thn scarce event of male makeup and beauty contests in the West to be within scope, and that this image illustrates that. Can you refute that claim, rather than clutching at unrelated policies, or at false claims that Beautycon (and the only Beautycon) was in a different month and city. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm perfectly happy to assume that there was a Beautycon in Dallas in March 2016. However, I think it is a long stretch to say that a photo of a man wearing some makeup in a car has any connection to Beautycon.
As for "There is no policy that vanity selfies should be deleted", at Com:Scope we have:
"However, the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project."
That'll be the stated file description ""Peter Pratts attends Beautycon March 19 2016"", which you're choosing to claim "has no connection".
And yet you still can't drop the red herring that selfies are a reason for deletion (they're not), rather than not a reason for passing scope otherwise, without (as here) another reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would like to provide clarification about the origin of these files, because they do not all have the same origin and should not be treated as a single category.
1. Original photographs taken by me
The following photographs are original photographs that I personally took with my own mobile phone/camera in Keshanak village, North Khorasan Province, Iran:
These are genuine camera photographs. They were not generated by artificial intelligence.
I am the original photographer and copyright holder of these photographs.
During the upload process, I identified them as my own work and provided the relevant source, authorship, licensing, descriptions, captions, tags, and categories.
These photographs document a real geographic location and local site — Keshanak village, its roads, landscape, and Imamzadeh Keshanak.
They are therefore not fictional AI-generated depictions.
This was also not intended to be a fictional image generated from nothing.
It is based on an original photograph/panorama of Keshanak village that I personally created. The AI was used only as an editing aid.
I disclosed the use of AI during the upload process. Where applicable, the original source image can also be provided for comparison and verification.
The AI assistance was limited to editing/enhancement rather than creating the depicted location from scratch.
4. The distinction is important for the application of F10
The deletion logs for the files state:
“Personal AI generated image (F10)”
I respectfully request that the files be reviewed individually because the seven files do not have identical origins.
In particular, the five original camera photographs listed above are not AI-generated images.
They are photographs personally taken by me of an identifiable real-world location.
The presence of two separately disclosed AI-assisted derivatives in the same account should not by itself cause the original camera photographs to be classified as AI-generated images.
The original photographs also have a clear documentary and geographical purpose: they record Keshanak village, its landscape, roads, and a local religious site.
I therefore respectfully ask that the original photographs be evaluated independently from the AI-assisted derivatives.
5. Transparency regarding AI use
I want to emphasize that I did not attempt to conceal the use of artificial intelligence.
For the AI-assisted files, I used the AI-related disclosure options provided during the Wikimedia Commons upload process and identified the tool used.
For the Imamzadeh image in particular, the AI modification was limited to improving lighting of an existing photograph that I had personally taken.
I understand that Wikimedia Commons has specific policies concerning AI-generated and AI-assisted content, and I respect the need to distinguish such material from ordinary photographs.
My request is therefore not to misrepresent the AI-assisted files as ordinary photographs, but to ensure that the genuinely original photographs are not incorrectly classified on that basis.
6. Evidence of authorship
I am the original photographer of the camera photographs.
If necessary, I can provide the original files directly from the device on which they were taken, as well as:
original-resolution files;
available EXIF/metadata;
unedited source photographs;
comparisons between original and AI-assisted versions;
and any other reasonable evidence needed to verify authorship and provenance.
For the Imamzadeh photograph, the original version is already separately identified above, making it possible to compare the original photograph with the AI-assisted derivative.
I am fully willing to cooperate with Commons administrators and provide additional evidence if required.
7. Request for review
I respectfully request that:
1. The original camera photographs be undeleted and restored.
2. The original photographs be evaluated as photographs personally taken by me, rather than as AI-generated images.
3. The AI-assisted files be considered separately according to their actual origin and the AI disclosures I provided.
4. If there is uncertainty about whether F10 applies to any of these files, I respectfully request that the matter be reviewed through the normal deletion-request process rather than relying solely on speedy deletion.
5. The available evidence of authorship and the relationship between the original and AI-assisted files be taken into consideration.
I appreciate the work of Wikimedia Commons administrators and volunteers. My intention is to comply with Commons policies and to provide accurate documentation of Keshanak village.
I don't remember exactly what this logo looked like, but I'd like to request a judgment from an admin who wasn't involved in the deletion thread discussion, as some of us thought it was under COM:TOO US, and the closing admin suggested appealing their decision here if we didn't agree with it. Thanks, everyone! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose I note that on the upload you claimed this was {{Own}} work, that is that you were the actual photographer. However, your file description says that the actual photographer was Iago Mati. That makes it difficult to believe anything you say. Either Iago Mati must send a free license using VRT or you must send a free license together with a copy of a written license from Iago Mati which allows you to freely license this image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The photograph was taken by Peter Mayr, however the photograph was commissioned by us, the office of Regional Councillor Dr. Christian Dörfel. We therefore hold the image rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iswa97 (talk • contribs)
Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 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 "
Support keep per Template:PD-US-extracted-audio. JaydenChao (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
Comment The character is not Mickey Mouse - multiple animation studios in the era had characters with vaguely similar appearance, including some that predated Mikey - so that should not be a factor. However if the audio was US recordings, they would not yet be PD per Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings as the term is 100 years, which has not yet passed. -- 19:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit){kind=link}
.jpg%26diff%3D0){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dwatch){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dunwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dpurge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26preload%3DCommons%3ADeletion_requests%2Fpreload){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Question If the flag is unofficial, then {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} does not apply. So what is the copyright status then? Was it used more than 95 years ago? Ankry (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
Weak support While I can't find a full scan of this exact issue, looking through the May 1976 issue, there is indeed no valid copyright notice for the magazine. The chances that a publisher realized they were putting defective copyright notices on their magazines and started putting valid copyright notices on this specific issue and forgot how to do proper copyright notices for the next decade and a half are near zero. The limited scans of the July issue do strongly suggest they never affixed a proper copyright notice. Based5290 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
.png%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
![[12]](https://rssamplifier.com/api/frame?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tv-tokyo.co.jp%2Fzipangu%2Fcommon%2Fimages%2Fbnr_bod_paravi.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://rssamplifier.com/api/frame?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fujikensetsu.com%2F_nuxt%2Fsrc%2Fassets%2Fimg%2Fcommon%2Flogo-full.svg){kind=link}
_title.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Restore, but this is the only one i personally would.
Neutral in this matter. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit){kind=link}
.jpg%26diff%3D0){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dwatch){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dunwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dpurge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26preload%3DCommons%3ADeletion_requests%2Fpreload){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit){kind=link}
.jpg%26diff%3D0){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dwatch){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dunwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dpurge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26preload%3DCommons%3ADeletion_requests%2Fpreload){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit){kind=link}
.jpg%26diff%3D0){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dwatch){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dunwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dpurge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26preload%3DCommons%3ADeletion_requests%2Fpreload){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
On hold, as the adjoining executive regulations which I just found needs some discussion on COM:VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_03.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_04.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.png%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_(52501898355).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.png%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_Shrine.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.png%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_01.JPG%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_02.JPG%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_(52501885245).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_(52500920892).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
-17.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
-23.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
-28.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
-33.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%25EC%259A%25B0%25ED%2595%259C%25EA%25B8%25B8(HK_Woo).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%25EC%259A%25B0%25ED%2595%259C%25EA%25B8%25B8(HK_Woo)_(1).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%25EC%259A%25B0%25ED%2595%259C%25EA%25B8%25B8(HK_Woo)_(2).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%25EC%259A%25B0%25ED%2595%259C%25EA%25B8%25B8(HK_Woo).jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
