The center for all Wikitravel images!

Votes for deletion/Archive Jan-June 2010

From Wikitravel Shared
Votes for deletion : Archive Jan-June 2010
Jump to: navigation, search


This is an archive of images and other files whose VFDs closed between Jan. 2010 and Jun. 2010

January 2010[edit]

Image:NC regions.gif[edit]

  • Delete. Really nice map, but the uploader provides no indication that he created it himself. Some of the user's other uploads have already been deleted as copyvios, so I think we have to presume this one is too. User has also not edited either :en or shared since his first day on the site, back in April, not even to respond to concerns raised by Peter. LtPowers 11:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Outer Banks- Ocracoke Beach.JPG[edit]

  • Delete. The uploader provides no indication that he took this photo himself. Some of the user's other uploads have already been deleted as copyvios, so I think we have to presume this one is too. User has also not edited either :en or shared since his first day on the site, back in April, not even to respond to concerns raised by Peter. LtPowers 11:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Four images from User:Angelaptero3[edit]

  • Image:Ballgame.jpg
  • Image:Xcaret 022.jpg
  • Image:Swimwithdolphins.jpg
  • Image:Xcaretinlet.jpg
    • These are nice photos but there is evidence that at least two of them are copyright violations. The dolphins photo is very similar to this image, and TinEye turns up five matches for the "inlet" scene: [1], although they're all much smaller than the one Angelaptero3 uploaded. Regardless, though, even if the first three aren't copyvios they still violate our image policy since they contain recognizable depictions of individuals. The fourth does not, but it has the possible copyright issues. LtPowers 13:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:U-Bahn in Wien.png[edit]

License violation. This map is licensed under cc-by-nc-nd-1.0.[2]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 12:42, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Too bad, too; it'd be quite useful for us. LtPowers 21:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
    • Fortunately [3] this can substitute. Jpatokal 23:53, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Macedonia regions map1.png[edit]

Uploader was apparently confused; this map should have been uploaded over Image:Macedonia regions map.png. The SVG source was not updated, and attribution information was not maintained as required by the license. The addition of the city to the list of cities on en:Macedonia was also not discussed beforehand. LtPowers 16:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)


Out of scope. LtPowers 14:23, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Tatata, could you comment, is this used in anywhere relevant (infobox or something?). sertmann 22:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
According to the Wikitraveler who uploaded this image, this woman is a famous poet who worked mostly in Meiji to Showa era in Japan (about 100 to 50 years ago), and her birthplace is designated as one of the municipal heritage. See the column at ja:富田林市#観る.
For your information, I am quite neutral about this VFD (just tell you the information abut this image and usage).--Shoestring 09:09, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Looks like it's used in an infobox, which generally contain encyclopedic content tangential to travel. That would seem to make the image relevant, if decorative, but our image policy doesn't cover such uses. LtPowers 13:35, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Keep. If the lady warrants a mention in an infobox, I think the picture is also worthwhile. There's precedent for interesting historical pictures here, see eg. Image:Riyadh_NationalMuseum_IbnSaud.JPG. Jpatokal 05:58, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Kept. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Yamatotakeru001.jpg and Image:Gyouki001.jpg[edit]

(rolling these two images together)

Japanese law allows derivative works of public art to be made, but only for non-commercial uses. See commons:COM:FOP#Japan. LtPowers 14:28, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. The letter of the law states (in translation) that "reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies" (my emphasis) is prohibited. Wikitravel does not sell such copies, ergo, this is no problem. Whether somebody else downloads a picture off Shared and attempts to hawk copies is not our problem. Jpatokal 02:46, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep In any case, build in 1880, copyright expired. (50 years). sertmann 22:15, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
    • Can I ask how you know both statues were erected in 1880? LtPowers 22:20, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't, the categories got merged after I researched the Yamato Takeru statue. sertmann 13:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Kept. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)


Identifiable person. I'm not sure whether the fact that he's famous makes it more or less important that we delete the image. LtPowers 14:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Singers Lianhuashan2.jpg[edit]

Recognizable people. LtPowers 13:45, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Animal Kingdom Tree of Life.jpg[edit]

It makes me sad, especially since it means we can never have a picture of this Animal Kingdom icon on Wikitravel, but the image is a derivative work of the tree-sculpture. The original source of this image on Commons was just deleted (see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Tree of Life (Disney)) for that very reason. LtPowers 16:03, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)


Photo is a derivative work of the depicted poster, which is itself derivative of its included photos. LtPowers 11:35, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)


Photo is a derivative work of the depicted poster, which is itself derivative of its included photo. LtPowers 11:35, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 21:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Kilkenny Castle Fountain.jpg[edit]

Recognizable people, which goes against our image policy if we want to be strict about it. Sadly, this is the image used on the English front page for Kilkenny's OtBP feature. LtPowers 09:19, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep The girl is looking away (and the visible 1/3rd of her face, is washed out by image compression, even in full size). The the Mom is not recognisable at all. sertmann 13:24, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
    • From Image policy: "A photo of the Taj Mahal is useful for travellers; a photo of your girlfriend in a funny hat standing in front of the Taj Mahal is not." While there are no funny hats involved here, I think the same principle applies. The question is whether or not the people in this photo are incidental to the photo. I don't believe that to be the case here; the photo looks to me to be of the people with the castle merely the setting. LtPowers 20:28, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Although this is clearly a borderline case (which is why it's a proper vfd), I'm inclined to disagree, and judge that the people are incidental. They are not really recognizable, the subject-castle is well illustrated, and it's all around a nice composition. If we have better images of the castle without the people in front, lets replace this, but I don't think it's necessary to delete it. (FWIW, I'm actually a pretty fierce partisan of keeping tourists out of our photos, by the way.) --Peter Talk 23:15, 2 January 2010 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. Shaund 02:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)


Also Image:Sibiu.jpg (identical copy).

Although I can't read Romanian, I believe this is a copyright violation from LtPowers 10:59, 14 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. Pretty clear copyvio, presumed guilty absent a defense by the uploader. --Peter Talk 23:23, 2 January 2010 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:03, 3 January 2010 (EST)


Obviously modified from a Google map, which is copyrighted. LtPowers 11:06, 14 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Bethayres Tavern 1950 2 WEB.jpg[edit]

Obviously not taken by the uploader, and without further information on how old the photo is, we have to assume it's copyrighted. LtPowers 11:18, 14 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)


Just an ad, probably taken from the restaurant's web site anyway. LtPowers 11:18, 14 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)


Duplicate of Image:Misadhbfgsdajgdsfh.jpg. LtPowers 12:46, 16 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. The other image is used on a user page, but this one is not. Shaund 02:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Monticello Home9.JPG [edit]

No licensing information of any sorts, no response on requests to specify - sertmann 10:14, 17 November 2009 (EST)

  • Keep; en:User:Ariel Lickton asserts that the images being uploaded were taken by him/her and his/her classmates. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)


No licensing information of any sorts, no response on requests to specify - sertmann 10:14, 17 November 2009 (EST)

  • Keep; en:User:Ariel Lickton asserts that the images being uploaded were taken by him/her and his/her classmates. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Mainpub.jpg [edit]

No licensing information of any sorts, no response on requests to specify - sertmann 10:14, 17 November 2009 (EST)

  • Keep; en:User:Ariel Lickton asserts that the images being uploaded were taken by him/her and his/her classmates. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)


No licensing information, and this image is found at confectionery's official site.[4]

  • Delete -- Tatata 22:48, 18 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)


This image is provided as free to use at [5]. But, the owner of the site states that "サイズ変更、トリミング・簡単な色修正をしたのみで、2次配布・有料販売することは禁止とします。(具体的に…掲載しているJPGデータを素材サイトやCD-ROM等の素材集として再配布することを禁止しています。)明らかに別物としてでしたら許可します。 "[6], literally means "In case you just only do resizing, cropping or basic color correction, redistribution and sale are prohibited. (concretely speaking, it is prohibited to launch similar web site based on JPG data of this site or to create CD-ROM for redistribution.) Apparent derivative work will be permitted". Unfortunately, their terms of use do not meet our copyleft, even if we will not do such things.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 05:57, 19 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Welcome Sign.jpg[edit]

Incorporates copyrighted logos. LtPowers 18:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Kaya jam, Malaysia.JPG[edit]

Derivative of the pictured label designs. LtPowers 18:37, 24 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:West Java - Map.jpg[edit]

  • delete copyvio --Rein N. 03:47, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Pangandaran - Map.gif[edit]

Appears to be a copyvio from LtPowers 13:17, 27 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 02:18, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Image policy/[edit]

  • Speedy deleted - spambot --Rein N. 14:35, 29 November 2009 (EST)


This is a straight copy of Image:North_Korea_Regions_Map.png with one single label change and a highly contentious one at that - Sea of Japan to East Sea. Also, the licensing is not compatible with the map it is a copy of. I explain more to the user here. I guess no real issue providing the licensing is changed but it seems silly to have two identical versions of the same map, bar that one label. This could confuse future users, especially as the source SVG has not been changed. --Burmesedays 02:28, 30 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. This map is now the same as the version on :en. Deleted as duplicate version not needed. Shaund 02:33, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Tamang Girl at Khandadevi.jpg[edit]

Deleted at :en as out of scope. I tend to agree; it's a single person with no obvious travel relevance. LtPowers 13:32, 1 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Lama Women at Dhogme.jpg[edit]

Deleted at :en as out of scope. I tend to agree; it's a single person with no obvious travel relevance. LtPowers 13:32, 1 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Image:2009kysp logo.gif[edit]

Image is taken from That website carries a notice that says Copyright 2009 Commonwealth of Kentucky, All rights reserved. - 03:59, 2 December 2009 (EST)

  • Nomination was incomplete; the {{vfd}} tag was not added to the image description page. I've added it. LtPowers 11:43, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. And delete Image:Ky state parks logo.jpg too (it's a smaller version of the same image). LtPowers 11:43, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)


Obvious copyright and trademark violation. LtPowers 11:37, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Logo es.jpg[edit]

This image is not within our scope. It's just an ad. LtPowers 10:22, 4 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete.

Pictures from User:Suzy[edit]

These all look like ads to me, especially given the contents of User:Suzy's user page. Out of scope in any case. LtPowers 08:26, 7 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Kentucky's Western Waterland logos[edit]

More Kentucky logos from User:Kriscarlson. LtPowers 10:03, 8 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)


  • Just an ad. LtPowers 19:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete sertmann 10:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Odawara Catle.jpg[edit]

Copyvio found at [7] (Copyright All Rights Reserved) and [8] (requires permission).

  • Delete. -- Tatata 00:43, 10 December 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)


Copyvio found at [9] (Copyright All Rights Reserved).

  • Delete. -- Tatata 04:18, 10 December 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. Shaund 23:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Siem reap old market map.png[edit]

Obvious copyvio from --Burmesedays 06:13, 31 January 2010 (EST)

Speedy deleted as obvious copyvio. LtPowers 09:16, 31 January 2010 (EST)

Images uploaded by User:Guyfrombronx[edit]

This user has uploaded quite a few good quality images for Toronto and Vancouver, but doesn't source them. I've tracked a number of them down, and unfortunately, many of them come from Flickr pages with "all rights reserved" (see the five Vancouver images deleted last month) or they're based on copyrighted material like the Toronto map above. Any images that I found and were OK, I've tagged with the appropriate source info.

At this point, I think we should unfortunately assume guilt until innocence is proven and delete any image uploaded by this user except where it has been proven to be compatible with our copyleft license. Peter and I have both asked for further information from the user on his talk page, so hopefully he'll get back to us.

The following are images from Guyfrombronx that are not sourced or are copyright violations. I've checked most of these to Commons and haven't found a matching image.

  • Delete. -Shaund 20:58, 1 January 2010 (EST)
Deleted. Riggwelter 17:11, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Norways national parks Hardangervidda.jpg[edit]

The source is a Norwegian government web site, but it appears (from Commons:Commons:Licensing#Norway) that only laws and reports produced by the government are considered to "fall in the free". Whether this web site counts as such a report is not at all clear, and even if it did, we don't know that the image was produced specifically for this single use. LtPowers 16:49, 4 January 2010 (EST)

  • Note, it appears that the company mentioned below has done work for the Directorate for Nature Management; it seems likely this map was one of those works, to which I believe the company would retain the copyright. LtPowers 16:55, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Hardangervidda map.jpg[edit]

The source is Gåsvatn kart-tjenester [14] which appears to be a private cartography company. No evidence that the original has been released under a free license. LtPowers 16:54, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Shanghai Lu Xun Park statue.JPG[edit]

Sadly, while China does have provisions to allow the free photographing of public works, they do require that the author and title of the work be included. This photograph has neither. LtPowers 19:41, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Doc budget hotel riga-s.jpg[edit]

Looks like a copyright violation to me. LtPowers 13:41, 5 January 2010 (EST)

The VFD'd version has been deleted, but the latter has been kept, together with the uploader's confirmation. Riggwelter 17:18, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:IMG 2041.JPG[edit]

Identical to Image:IMG Rothe House.JPG, witch has a better filename. --Rein N. 06:29, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Nollen Plaza.JPG[edit]

Derivative work. LtPowers 09:09, 8 January 2010 (EST)


Derivative work. LtPowers 09:09, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Image:OAKLAND sign on pine.jpg[edit]

Derivative work. LtPowers 10:57, 9 January 2010 (EST)

Image:IMG 1043.JPG[edit]

Derivative work. LtPowers 09:29, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Logo Parkstad.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted commercial/government logo. Sertmann 10:19, 11 January 2010 (EST)


(Comments copied from :en VFD page.)

Looks like a probably copyvio to me. LtPowers 20:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - It's far too small to be legible anyway. Texugo 22:04, 8 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete - probably a copyvio and nigh on useless anyway. --Burmesedays 11:21, 15 February 2010 (EST)


(Comments copied from :en VFD page.)

Another one from Huntingdon Valley. I guess there is a WT school project in the Philadelphia area at the moment? The image is from The page seems to have been taken down but you can see the identical thumbnail in a Google image search here. --Burmesedays 11:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)


License says user created the image himself and has PD'd it. Seems very unikely. --Burmesedays 10:38, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Delete. I agree. Out of scope anyway. LtPowers 13:47, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Delete. User has replied to me and it is clearly a copyvio and he did not create it. Also all other images uploaded from this user are probably dodgy as well. I will try to educate him about copyleft. --Burmesedays 22:23, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Smlie by night editied compressed.jpg[edit]

Inside of a restaurant with identifiable people. LtPowers 21:48, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Jetski barrel roll.jpg[edit]

Identifiable person. LtPowers 21:48, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Market at Chichi.JPG[edit]

copyvio [[15]] --Rein N. 13:43, 19 January 2010 (EST)

Doesn't look like the same image to me. LtPowers 14:04, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Keep. I agree with LtPowers. Riggwelter 12:53, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Water park.jpg[edit]

It's an ad, probably copyvio too. LtPowers 14:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Image:ピクチャ 2.png[edit]

Out of scope. Shoes? Also the filename causes thumbnailing problems. LtPowers 19:07, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Visegrad tourist map.png[edit]

The Visegrad tourism website (linked on the image description page) indicates that its content is copyrighted, not free. LtPowers 08:53, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Image:Chinchilla sign.jpg[edit]

Presumably copyrighted sign. LtPowers 08:53, 28 January 2010 (EST)

February 2010[edit]

Image:IMG 4460.JPG[edit]

Also Image:Freedom Monument Riga Rasta.jpg (identical copy)

  • There is no freedom of panorama in Latvia, and the copyright on this sculpture doesn't expire until 2012, the 70th anniversary of the designer's death. LtPowers 13:29, 7 November 2009 (EST)
  • Sorry about that, I was not aware. If so, then I don't really have any objection (although I will note that I saw other pictures of it on Shared). (And please regardless feel free to delete the identical copy--that was me in my struggles to get the picture into the article). Rastapopulous 16:43, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Just out of interest, how do you figure 2012? Because if the copyright expires in 2012, that means it would have already been out of copyright under the 50 year rule which was in effect up until 2000, so copyright would not have been re-applied. --Inas 22:31, 9 November 2009 (EST)
Based on a discussion on Commons. I'm not familiar with the 50-year rule. LtPowers 12:21, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Latvia had a 50 year rule (as did other countries, including Australia) up until 2000. The 70-year-rule was introduced then, and extended copyright only for those works which were still under copyright. It did not re-establish copyright on any works for which copyright had already expired. Accordingly, if you are correct that the copyright expires in 2012 in Latvia under the 70-year rule, then the copyright would have already expired in 1992 under the 50-year rule, and would not have been reasserted in 2000 under the new legislation. --Inas 20:13, 12 November 2009 (EST)
Well, it wouldn't be the first time Commons missed a nuance of copyright law. =) It'd be nice if we didn't have to do this research ourselves and someone could just tell us whether a particular work was in the public domain or not. LtPowers 08:58, 13 November 2009 (EST)
So does this mean it is deleted or kept? rastapopulous 16:56, 15 November 2009 (EST)
If LtPowers is right, and the start date for counting copyright was 1942, then we should Keep, as the statue would not be covered by copyright in Latvia, and there is no reason to delete it. --Inas 17:32, 29 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. I have no formal legal background, so I'm really not too qualified to make these types of judgments, but my understanding is that Wikitravel is hosted in the U.S., and is thus subject to U.S. laws, which allow for fair use. Fair use should give us the right to use editorially important images for illustrative purposes, I think. In any rate, in absence of any complaints, I'm inclined to keep images of landmarks, since images of landmarks are precisely what our guides are meant to include. --Peter Talk 23:20, 2 January 2010 (EST)
    • Our current image policy makes no provision for fair use; it demands that all images be freely licensed. Inas's argument is at least in line with policy, but keeping on the basis of "fair use" is not. LtPowers 20:17, 3 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep. "Freedom of panorama" is - to me - a completely new and incomprehensible reason for deletion. An image of a sculpture in a public place for the public to enjoy is not something we should delete with reference to the creator of the statue (in this case). Or are we to remove all images of houses just because the architect is still alive? Riggwelter 12:58, 19 February 2010 (EST)
    • Most countries have exceptions to their copyright law allowing photographs of architecture to be made regardless of the copyright status of the architecture. But not all of those countries extend that freedom to artworks. And in Latvia, they don't even do the former, unless the photograph is only used non-commercially. LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
Any source to that claim? As I put it earlier, I do not think we have to be that strict. Riggwelter 11:08, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Rather than have this discussion in four different places on this page alone, please add your comments at Talk:Image policy#Editorial use. Thanks! LtPowers 11:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)


A sculpture in Pennsylvania. With no idea who created it, we have to assume it's under copyright. LtPowers 16:05, 9 November 2009 (EST)

  • Keep per my rationale regarding Image:IMG 4460.JPG. I believe we should keep these types of images of tourist attractions for our purposes under the principles of fair use. And in general, I'm inclined to err on the side of inclusion of useful images. --Peter Talk 23:22, 2 January 2010 (EST)
    • As above, "fair use" is not a policy-based argument. As you mention below (in #Image:Lovina Dolphin Statue.jpg), a discussion is necessary if we are to begin accepting non-free files. LtPowers 20:17, 3 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - but no to fair use. Riggwelter 13:00, 19 February 2010 (EST)
    • You can't have it both ways. The sculpture is copyrighted, so it can only be used under a claim of fair use. And we don't allow that in our current policy. LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
See below. Riggwelter 11:12, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Lovina Dolphin Statue.jpg[edit]

I can't find any information on when this particular statue was sculpted, nor whether Bali has exceptions in its copyright law for publicly displayed works. If anyone has such information that indicates we can keep it, I welcome it; otherwise, we should delete it to be safe. LtPowers 11:05, 14 November 2009 (EST)

I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me as a bad practice for a travel site to prohibit pictures of landmarks. I say err on the side of inclusion. --Peter Talk 12:04, 14 November 2009 (EST)
Well, we could certainly make a fair use argument, but that has to be justified for each use, and it becomes harder for commercial uses. LtPowers 10:44, 15 November 2009 (EST)
This (rather marvellous) statue was commissioned by the local regency government of Buleleng (a Province of Bali) in the early 1980s. It is an iconic local landmark and there is certainly a fair use argument. Indonesian copyright law was last updated in 2002 (Indonesian Copyright Law No.19/2002). It seems from this law that images of items owned or created by the gov't of Indonesia are in effect released into the public domain (rather like in the US). As an example, there are several images uploaded at Wikimedia Commons on that basis. What is less clear is whether this law should or can be applied to Indonesian provincial governments. Also at a purely practical level, please understand that this is a country where government departments use pirated software, huge publicly quoted retailers sell pirated DVDs....... It would be a shame to lose this image but not the end of the world. If it is deleted though, then for consistency there are a large number of other images of public Indonesian government property which will have to go as well(statues, monuments, signs etc). --Burmesedays 01:31, 16 November 2009 (EST)
When necessary (I'm not so sure it is for this one), I think it's fine for us to provide a fair use rationale (as does Commons) for each image in question, and to leave proper re-use to the re-users. Re-users need to check the image page anyway to determine proper licensing & whom to attribute. --Peter Talk 22:40, 18 November 2009 (EST)
Commons does not do that. English Wikipedia does. Just to be clear. =) I think allowing fair use would be a significant shift in this project's stated goals and ought to be discussed somewhere much more prominent than VfD. LtPowers 11:45, 19 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Peter - you are usually the first to say that vfd is here to follow policy not develop it! :-) But - I don't think we should start deleting Indonesian monuments until the legal framework becomes clear. As Burmesedays implies, the possibility of actual legal action seems very remote. --Inas 17:28, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Guilty as charged ;) Whether we should keep images under fair use is a discussion we really do need to have. Cases such as this one remain totally uncertain since we are charged with simply applying policy to vfds, but we do not have a clear policy regarding the issue brought up. As Jani said, we should have a serious discussion on this topic at Talk:Copyleft. I will abstain from starting this discussion at this present, due to the lingering effects of... --Peter Talk 23:30, 2 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - but a firm no to the use of fair use. Riggwelter 13:01, 19 February 2010 (EST)
    • Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "no" to fair use and "yes" to keeping this file. What is your justification for keeping this if not through a fair use exemption to copyright? LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
I will not pretend I understand the legal principles involved here, but it seems bizarre that a travel guide cannot use pictures of publicly owned landmarks through fear of breaching copyright.--Burmesedays 21:41, 20 February 2010 (EST)
I can only agree with Burmesedays. It is simply bizarre. Riggwelter 11:10, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Rather than have this discussion in four different places on this page alone, please add your comments at Talk:Image policy#Editorial use. Thanks! LtPowers 11:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Chambersburg Map.jpg[edit]

Superceded by Image:Map of Franklin County Pennsylvania With Municipal and Township Labels.png, which I just uploaded to replace it. Note that this jpg was a copyvio at the time it was uploaded, as the original on Wikimedia Commons was licensed with the GFDL only. Only because of the recent relicensing of GFDL content to GFDL + CC by-sa 3.0 was I able to upload the replacement image. LtPowers 08:48, 11 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete - Shaund 01:11, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Place Avram Iancu.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation from Commons (commons:File:Piaţa Avram Iancu & Teatrul Naţional, Cluj-Napoca.jpg). Normally, I'd just add the missing attribution information and fix the licensing, but I believe the original is a copyright violation as well and have nominated it for deletion from Commons. It'll still be available on Flickr, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a photo of a copyrighted sculpture in a country with no freedom-of-panorama exceptions. LtPowers 09:22, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Copyright in Romania[edit]

There is no copyright violation: see the Romanian Copyright Law, Capitolul VI, Art. 33, h, which clearly stipulates that taking and publishing pictures of works of art permanently located in a public place is allowed unless the picture depicts exclusively the work of art or is used in a commercial purpose.--Trm 10:39, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Google's translation uses the phrase "main subject", which I would say is the case here -- the sculpture is the main subject of the image and the rest is just background. But I could be wrong. LtPowers 11:24, 1 January 2010 (EST)
  • Result: Delete - Shaund 01:11, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Teslic flag.jpg[edit]

Found one match at TinEye, although the image is no longer on the server mentioned. [16] Still, looks like an obvious copyvio to me, and out of scope to boot. LtPowers 10:12, 14 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete - Shaund 01:11, 6 February 2010 (EST)


Found this image on several web sites; appears to be taken from an earlier version of Gunstock's web site (they now have a different Flash map up). It's useless at this resolution anyway. LtPowers 09:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete (I don't think I've ever seen a ski hill map that isn't copyrighted) - Shaund 01:11, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Map Torres del Paine, Parque Nacional.jpg[edit]

We have to assume this map is copyrighted. LtPowers 10:17, 28 December 2009 (EST)

Keep Unless someone knows something I don't - the source is Gobierno de Chile, Minesterio de Agricultura and according to Chilean Copyright law "Works expropriated by the state, unless a beneficiary is specified by law." are public domain. Sertmann 11:46, 6 January 2010 (EST)
Apologies, I admit I did not see the government logo on there. LtPowers 14:45, 6 January 2010 (EST)
  • Result: Keep - Shaund 01:11, 6 February 2010 (EST)


I created these images, I want it to be deleted as I realized it has copyrights. Cheers. --JohnMarcelo 11:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted per uploader request; copyvios. --Peter Talk 20:16, 1 February 2010 (EST)


I recognised this one right away as I have been looking for free sources for tracing a West Java map. This one isn't free. A clear copy vio from here and elsehwere. Not sure which site actually owns the image. --Burmesedays 06:59, 1 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Reşiţa fântână.jpg[edit]

Original image on Flickr is "All rights reserved", certainly not public domain. 07:08, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Sir, what is the good license? Why not put yourself? I'm sure you know which is good license. Mr. man 07:39, 3 February 2010 (EST)

It's not my image! Nor is it yours. The person who uploaded it to Flickr reserves all rights to the image, but we can only use free images here. LtPowers 08:39, 4 February 2010 (EST)
  • Delete (obviously).--Burmesedays 11:24, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Image:259540634 5d17c645c5 b.jpg, Image:Kuala Lumpur City Centre b.jpg[edit]

both copyvio [[17]] --Gf 06:11, 7 February 2010 (EST)

  • Delete, clear copyvio.--Burmesedays 11:29, 15 February 2010 (EST)


Almost certainly a copyvio. I will contact SnappyHip and ask him not to do this. --Burmesedays 02:25, 8 February 2010 (EST)

  • Speedy Delete. User has confirmed it was downloaded from a website. --Burmesedays 11:17, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Category:GTV Resort, Bandhavgarh National Park[edit]

Many pictures of non-notable hotel. sertmann 07:30, 15 February 2010 (EST)

  • Keep for amusement purposes. Delete. :) --Burmesedays 11:26, 15 February 2010 (EST)


Fine picture and no copyright issues, but there are recognizable faces in the picture. What shall we do with that? --Globe-trotter 17:48, 15 February 2010 (EST)

  • We shall Delete it. --Inas 17:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:24, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Burry Port Beach.jpg[edit]

Delete. It is a Flickr image with incomplete markup. The image is all rights reserved, see [18]. --Burmesedays 05:23, 16 February 2010 (EST)


Delete. Same again, all rights reserved here--Burmesedays 05:33, 16 February 2010 (EST)


  • Delete - an obvious copyvio from here. I had forgotten how ugly Genting was.--Burmesedays 04:03, 18 February 2010 (EST)
  • Whoa. Same user has uploaded about 30 more images, all from the same website. I have asked the user to clarify urgently whether he or she owns these. I think we know the answer already though as this is the same user who uploaded the very clear copy vio images of Kuala Lumpur listed for deletion above.--Burmesedays 06:21, 18 February 2010 (EST)
  • See user reply here. All these images should be deleted immediately.--Burmesedays 08:14, 18 February 2010 (EST)
  • Speedy delete all, as user has confirmed he does not have the rights to these images. --Peter Talk 13:52, 18 February 2010 (EST)
All the images has been deleted and the contributor contacted through his talk page. No need to bring such obvious copyright violations to Vfd - instead, delete on sight. Riggwelter 15:15, 18 February 2010 (EST)
You sure about that? I would have thought that an attempt to make sure the user does not own the images is in order first. In any case I can't delete them, so I bring such cases to your collective attention here. There are several just as obvious violations which are sitting around undeleted above by the way. --Burmesedays 19:25, 18 February 2010 (EST)
Oh yes, I am sure. It is not up to Wikitravel to prove that an uploader has the right to use any image - it must be up to the uploader to prove it. In this case, it was clearly obvious. Riggwelter 02:57, 19 February 2010 (EST)
After somebody has taken the trouble to upload an image, albeit without understanding the copyright situation, I would tend towards being a little more friendly than that. Also, you might want to look at the significant number of images listed above which are just as obviously in breach of copyleft but just sit there with no action taken.--Burmesedays 06:03, 19 February 2010 (EST)
Well, the uploader was approached on en: in a friendly manner. If a user has confirmed he does not have the rights to an image, I do not see any reason to hold back when it comes to deletion. Riggwelter 12:31, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Image:Douro Internacional.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure about this one, but TinEye shows a match. LtPowers 19:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure either. I found a very similar map [19] through a Google search that did not have any copyright info on it. Although other pages in the site were copyrighted. Shaund 00:38, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Lack of copyright notice doesn't imply lack of copyright, sadly. The additional instance of use is merely more evidence that the uploader doesn't own the image and thus cannot release it into the public domain as he/she claims. LtPowers 20:55, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted by User:Riggwelter. LtPowers 16:00, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Logo cooltour.jpg[edit]

Logos are not likely to be licensed freely. LtPowers 17:30, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Deleted by User:Riggwelter. LtPowers 16:00, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Toronto District Map 1.PNG[edit]

License tag says the uploader owns the image, which seems highly unlikely given the "Toronto Tourism" logo in the bottom left. LtPowers 12:27, 23 December 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - The map is derived from the back of a visitor's map on the City of Toronto's website [20]. The page and all its contents are copyrighted [21]. - Shaund 19:57, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted by User:Riggwelter. LtPowers 16:00, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

March 2010[edit]

Image:First Light Veistospuistossa.jpg[edit]

No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Finland. LtPowers 10:36, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Huh? That's a strange motivation. Please clarify. Riggwelter 12:55, 19 February 2010 (EST)
What's strange about it? When the sculpture was created, it was automatically covered under a copyright belonging to the sculptor (or, possibly, to the organization or individual who commissioned the sculpture). A photograph of that sculpture is a derivative work of the sculpture, and cannot be licensed freely without the copyright holder's permission (unless the copyright has expired). Some countries have exceptions in their copyright laws for artistic works in public places, but Finland does not. LtPowers 09:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)
Well, I think it is just taking it a bit too far. Are there any precedents for that? Or is it just one of several possible ways to interpret CC-BY-SA? I think so. I have never heard about an artist getting upset about having their work pictured in a tourist guide! However, I am not a lawyer, so I might be wrong. But, as I said before, I do not think we have to be THAT strict about it - not without precedents. Riggwelter 11:04, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Rather than have this discussion in four different places on this page alone, please add your comments at Talk:Image policy#Editorial use. Thanks! LtPowers 11:28, 22 February 2010 (EST)
Delete. Seems like the Wikimedia Commons crew have deleted the original image from the original page too. Ypsilonatshared 11:00, 3 March 2010 (EST)

image:John Hill Photography Ad 2009.jpg[edit]

  • Speedy delete please. It's an ad with no interest and out of scope.--Burmesedays 10:24, 5 March 2010 (EST)

Image:Babi guling in gianyar.jpg[edit]

Recognizable person in the photo.

  • Delete - Texugo 22:36, 7 March 2010 (EST)
  • Bless her. That pig looks good.--Burmesedays 11:07, 8 March 2010 (EST)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


Photos listed on the article Taichung are obvious copied from other websites for example: Image:Taichung Park.jpg and Image:Taichung_JinMing_First_Street.jpg, the second pic has a writing below that is states it's from "Cat's blog". Please check and confirm if they are copied from other sites. Have a nice day :). SnappyHip 12:21, 8 March 2010 (GST)

Just to let you know, there are more photos in the article [[22]] they are all created by the same user who uploaded the other pictures above. - SnappyHip 7:26, 9 March 2010 (GST)

  • Delete both. Copyvios, not very interesting and in the first case, an advertisement. --Burmesedays 11:09, 8 March 2010 (EST)
  • Delete all of Andio's image uploads [23], pending a response from the uploader (I have left him a note pointing to this discussion). --Peter Talk 01:36, 9 March 2010 (EST)
All deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Ho Tay.jpg[edit]

Seems like a copyvio as there is a tag on the left bottom side of the picture and why is there no information of the picture? - SnappyHip 22:33, 9 March 2010 (GST)

  • Delete. Either way, we don't allow use of photos with watermarks. If it is a free image (and the uploader confirms this), then we could keep it after cropping it out, though. --Peter Talk 16:38, 9 March 2010 (EST)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Blue Land.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. An advertisement.--Burmesedays 05:37, 10 March 2010 (EST)
  • And how! Speedy deleted. -- D. Guillaime 16:04, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Several Kerala images[edit]

For violating the policies on montages, recognizable people, or both:

Image:Sweets of Kerala.jpg
Image:Cuisines of Kerala.jpg
Image:Festivals of Kerala.jpg
Image:Mundu and SetSari.jpg
Image:Mohiniyattam 3818274226 54abaf1a25 o.jpg
  • Delete all - Texugo 07:59, 13 March 2010 (EST)
  • Additionally, there are copyright questions about these images, and others uploaded by this user. Whilst he has been responsive in explaining where they came from - "mostly Commons" - we have no sources and no credits on any images he has uploaded. The latest response is that some of these also come from That site has an all rights reserved notice. He says the Kerala govt licences re-use of all images it owns, but for non-commercial purposes only. So a bit of muddle, and I am trying to find the relevant Kerala State Law. --Burmesedays 10:41, 13 March 2010 (EST)
  • Looking at this user's uploads, all those which are sourced to Kerala Tourism should be deleted. The rest seem to be from Commons, although many are missing source links. There is a lot of discussion here with the user who can be rather infuriating as his first reaction is to argue rather than try to understand.--Burmesedays 11:53, 13 March 2010 (EST)

Adding a couple of others here:

Image:Sari-and-Mundu.jpg - A ridiculous attempt to mosaic out faces to get around our people in photos policy.
Image:Kerala.jpg - Another tourism brochure photo with text.
I deleted the images. However, two of them seem to still be in the system somehow? Riggwelter 14:08, 14 March 2010 (EDT)
I will go through the whole list from this user. There are a lot more that appear to be copyvios from --Burmesedays 00:20, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

Images by Bchronley[edit]

Image:Munster sunset.jpg is all rights reserved on flickr [24], and Image:Cpark.jpg does not specify a source. It appears that the uploader [25] uploaded these files, unaware of the intricacies of our licensing, so...

  • Delete both --Peter Talk 00:02, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete--Burmesedays 09:48, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:20, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Appears to be all rights reserved at flickr [26]. --Peter Talk 00:06, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete--Burmesedays 09:48, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:11, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Katahdin boat.jpg[edit]

Deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Moheganbluffs.jpg and Image:Towers.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Both appear to be all rights reserved at flickr [28] & [29]. --Peter Talk 00:14, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete both--Burmesedays 09:48, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:St simons.pier.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Appears to be all rights reserved at flickr [30]. --Peter Talk 00:24, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete--Burmesedays 09:48, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Baku Train Map.JPG[edit]

I would imagine that map is copyrighted? Even if it isn't, the image is useless.

Deleted. Riggwelter 12:07, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

April 2010[edit]

Image:Colombian Fruits.JPG[edit]

Derivative of the pictured painting; doubtful that a local Colombian artist agreed to release his painting under a free license. LtPowers 10:04, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Deleted by User:Riggwelter. LtPowers 16:00, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:BCC lowres darthet 05 250x250px.jpg[edit]

The card design is presumably copyrighted. LtPowers 11:17, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Deleted. Riggwelter 12:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


A clear copyvio case. Copyright Travelocity Partners Network, here.

  • Speedied - Texugo 02:06, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Opera house sydney.jpg[edit]

Nailed on copy vio from here which has been adapted all over the blogosphere it seems. The same user has caused a fair bit of havoc with the Australian article at en, so I am not too surprised she did not understand our copyright situation.

  • Delete... quickly. --Burmesedays 22:22, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Speedied. LtPowers 16:30, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:UL StadthausMünster01 VSCD.jpg[edit]

Source listed as the official tourism organization for en:Ulm, but it seems unlikely they'd release an image under a Creative Commons license -- especially under all versions of the license. Without further proof of such a release, I don't think we can keep this image. LtPowers 11:39, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted by User:Shoestring. LtPowers 16:00, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Images uploaded by User:Glenn.scott[edit]

User has uploaded four Australian images with no source information. For this image:Harbourbridge.jpg, tineye gives a return here. The image has been substantially cropped and re-processed from that original. I would be nervous about the other three also (not yet checked). --Burmesedays 01:08, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Keep. The problem with using TinEye for photos of scenery is that a lot of people take pictures from similar positions of similar subjects. In this case, I believe the photo at is significantly different from the photo User:Glenn.scott uploaded here. For one thing, they were obviously taken at very different times of day, and from slightly different angles. There is no logical reason to suppose that the changes are the result of post-processing, especially that tree branch at the top. =) The other three images do not return any results on TinEye. LtPowers 16:17, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:MacLehose 1.JPG[edit]

  • Delete. Probably a copyvio and even if not, it is nigh on useless.--Burmesedays 09:14, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
    • Assuming the map is in Hong Kong, if it's installed in a public location then derivative works are okay. But I agree it's useless for us in this form. A photograph of a map is only slightly better than one drawn in Microsoft Paint. LtPowers 16:36, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Images by User:Goastin[edit]

I am not quite sure why this user is uploading lots of (badly drawn) symbols and I think all should be deleted as a combination of useless and out of scope. Also some sketchy maps which look like scans. Symbols:

Others that look dodgy:

  • Delete - Looks like another Vandal/troll and the pictures are pointless. --User:SnappyHip 03:38, 19 April, 2010
  • Notice. User:Senis appears to be related somehow. Might want to check his/her contributions as well. LtPowers 18:30, 20 April 2010 (EDT)


Out of scope, blurry. LtPowers 21:44, 20 April 2010 (EDT)


Likely copyvio; several results on TinEye. LtPowers 21:47, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Also out of scope. --Burmesedays 20:55, 21 April 2010 (EDT)


Apparent copyvio from LtPowers 17:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Cambridge Gulf.jpg[edit]

Both images are from Flickr, where they are both licensed CC-by-nc-sa 2.0. We don't allow noncommercial-only images. LtPowers 17:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Obviously. --Burmesedays 04:22, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:IMG 0172.jpg[edit]

Badly-named duplicate of Image:Ashdod marina.jpg. LtPowers 09:09, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:William Walker by Brady.jpg[edit]

Portrait of William Walker. Out of scope. LtPowers 13:34, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Nice portrait of an interesting man, but no relevance here.--Burmesedays 04:24, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Maderia Interior.jpg[edit]

Copyvio from . Same uploader as East_Providence_Skyline.jpg (above). LtPowers 13:25, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

This image can be deleted. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .


Duplicate of Image:Pristina manhole.JPG. LtPowers 11:43, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 08:29, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

May 2010[edit]

Images uploaded by User:Babycute911[edit]

Image:Ao dai, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Ha Long Bay Boat, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Lantern, Hoi An Ancient Town, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Opera house in Hanoi.jpg
Image:Temple of Literature, Hanoi, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Girl with peach flowers, Vietnam .jpg
Image:Terraced field, Sapa, Vietnam.jpg
Image:Vũ điệu thần tiên sếu đầu đỏ9.jpg
Image:The Mon Gate- Hue citadel, Vietnam.jpg

Vfd'd for various reasons, the most important one being copyright violation. They were uploaded with a not-copyrighted notice but were taken from sites like and, which have clear copyright notices.

  • Delete all - Texugo 01:22, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete all --Burmesedays 06:03, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Result: All deleted.--Burmesedays 22:55, 23 May 2010 (EDT)


A painting, not a photo. Is it OK to speedy this kind of thing as a clear violation of our "only simple photography" guideline? Texugo 01:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - Texugo 02:06, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete --Burmesedays 22:16, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Result: deleted. --Burmesedays 22:58, 23 May 2010 (EDT)


Out of scope, probable copyvio to boot. LtPowers 18:32, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. I have already deleted all the text that went with that image and which was copied from the same website.
  • Result: deleted. --Burmesedays 23:00, 23 May 2010 (EDT)


It is an easily recognised Google Map (as the uploader freely states).--Burmesedays 11:59, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. --Burmesedays 11:59, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
    • Speedily deleted. LtPowers 13:00, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Sheraton Mustika Yogyakarta[edit]

Clearly not appropriate, and should be deleted along with the attendant (duplicated) images Image:TamansariPool.jpg and Image:Tamansari Pool.jpg. --Burmesedays 01:05, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted by User:Peterfitzgerald. LtPowers 16:00, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Uploads by GreenLanternDC[edit]

Not even remotely in-scope. LtPowers 16:55, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Speedy deleted as obvious copyvios (a movie poster? really?); they were only being used for petty vandalism on en:Mohawk. - D. Guillaime 20:05, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
  • These have been re-added and I have again speedied.--Burmesedays 02:39, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
    • Five times now. He's persistent. LtPowers 21:22, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

May 2010[edit]

Image:Pub crawl outside realt dearg.jpg[edit]

Out of scope; recognizable people. LtPowers 10:25, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Images uploaded by user:L2ugl3urn[edit]

I do not think the user understands our copyleft.


Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Modern diner.jpg[edit]

Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


Obvious copyvio from -- the uploader lists this site as the source, but the site says nothing about a free license. And something tells me that blog stole the picture too. LtPowers 13:11, 10 May 2010 (EDT)


I don't trust these two. There's no copyright notice on, the listed source, and the uploader is User:Chestertouristcom, so there's a possibility they're okay legally. But they're also not that great as far as images go, so I don't think it's a big loss if we err on the side of caution. Would appreciate other perspectives, though. LtPowers 13:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Another one has been uploaded just today: Image:Gate.jpg. Same problems. LtPowers 20:47, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Toms RivBig.jpg[edit]

Copyvio from LtPowers 08:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Central-New-York Region.jpg[edit]

I have to question the marking of this file as PD-self, as it appears suspiciously similar to wikipedia:File:Central New York.png, which is licensed dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-3.0. Normally I would just change the license, but this file represents the Central New York region as defined by the New York State tourism organization, not as we define it on the English Wikitravel. LtPowers 19:46, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Star Lite Motel.jpg[edit]

Out of scope. An image of a ghastly motel in Minnesota.--Burmesedays 11:25, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure it's out of scope. We already have images like Image:Seligman SupaiMotel.JPG, which is prominently displayed on en:United States of America#Sleep. LtPowers 13:40, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
I would say the Seligman image is illustrative of a peculiarly American form of accommodation and is valid because of that. The Star Lite Motel image is just another photo of an uninteresting hotel. I thought we discouraged that?--Burmesedays 21:34, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm saying that the Star Lite Motel is also illustrative of a peculiarly American form of accommodation, isn't it? LtPowers 09:04, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
One example seems like enough to me. Slippery slopes all over the place. Or do we want lots of images of grotty Victorian Bed and Breakfast houses from England with a justification of their being peculiarly distinctive? --Burmesedays 23:54, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
That's a novel deletion criterion that I haven't seen used before. I'm not sure it's in line with policy. LtPowers 16:42, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Isn't this covered by en:Wikitravel:Accommodation_listings#Avoid_using_images. Seems a clear case to delete to me. If we keep every average motel because its an example of an average motel, then that policy becomes a farce. --Inas 02:28, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm not suggesting we keep every average motel. Just that this one might be useful and isn't necessarily out of scope. Notably, it shows the actual motel building instead of just the sign. LtPowers 08:16, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I honestly don't see your point. The photo isn't particularly good, and we have a policy of not keeping images of hotels unless they are used to exemplify a style, or are landmarks worth visiting in their own right. Can you give a reason as to why you think this one in particular may be useful, that wouldn't lead us to have to apply the same reasoning to every photo of a motel? I can't see anything remotely notable about it, and I agree with Burmesedays that this slope is so slimy as to be treacherous. If we keep this, then the policy we use to stop every accommodation provider adding an image of their establishment goes out the window. --Inas 19:27, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
My only point is that we don't appear to already have an image illustrating the typical American roadside motel. If we have a higher quality one, then I have no problem deleting this one. LtPowers 08:53, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. We don't keep images of hotels, unless they are required to illustrate a class of accommodation in an article. --Inas 07:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. The Seligman photo is a cute Route 66-y photo of a motel sign, but this one actually shows the building and layout. Jpatokal 08:29, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
Seriously. Have another look at this photo. There is a telegraph pole in the way, the framing is off. The angle is ugly. With all the contributors we have to WT from the states, if this really the best we can do for a shot of an American motel? Everybody seems to accept that we need to keep one shot of a typical American motel, but it is very hard to accept that it should be this one. However, if it is used in an article as that example, then policy says we should keep. At any time it becomes not used for that purpose, then it is a clear delete. --Inas 19:51, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. Might be useful. --Tiagox2 14:47, 29 May 2010 (EDT)


Copyvio. --Inas 07:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Yep, but you forgot to mark it with the vfd template. Anyway, I would have speedied it as a blatant copyvio, but there was an earlier version that the most recent uploader uploaded over. (Totally different maps, of course, but this is what happens when you use a stupid filename like "map.jpg".) We should discuss if there's value in the old map. I suspect not -- it's probably a copyvio as well -- but I didn't want it to get forgotten. LtPowers 09:02, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Yes, this really was just a placemarker while I figured out what to do with the older map. Thanks for adding the template.
  • Delete this image and the one it overlays. Top layer is a blatant copyvio. Bootom layer is a likely copyvio, and is unused on en or shared. --Inas 23:40, 19 May 2010 (EDT)


Nice shot of a stunning bar where I have spent a fair bit of time. The image is copyrighted here, and has been added by a user clearly working for the hotel in some capacity or another. Same user has made many (mostly bad) edits to the Jimbaran article at en. I will be amazed if the hotel management have actually released this shot with a cc licence.--Burmesedays 11:50, 19 May 2010 (EDT)


It's either a copyvio (from ) or blatant advertising (since it was uploaded by User:EAHOTEL). LtPowers 09:24, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Award misc birthday cake.jpg[edit]

I don't see the relevance. --Tiagox2 16:35, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

"Keep". It's in use on the talk page of a good ole friend of ourscacahuate talk 19:31, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Mina tripoli lebanon 1 .jpg[edit]

Obviously a (very) professional shot which makes me nervous of a PD self claim. Tineye gives one positive return from an all rights reserved Lebanese news site [31]. --Burmesedays 02:41, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Delete. I'm also concerned about Image:N648120020 683946 4441.jpg, which is also a shot of Tripoli, Lebanon, but I can't find any results on Commons or on Tineye. LtPowers 09:12, 25 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Out of scope image of a hotel.--Burmesedays 02:44, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. Might be useful. --Tiagox2 14:44, 29 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Out of scope image of a hotel.--Burmesedays 02:44, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. Might be useful. --Tiagox2 14:43, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

North Sentinel Island[edit]

  • Delete. Not possible to visit the island, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Also this is Wikitravel Shared, which is just an image repository.... destination guides belong on the various language versions such as Englishcacahuate talk 19:38, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Discussion is going on what to do with the slightly different article about the same place on en:, but we certainly do not need this one here (plus, this version is mostly a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article about the island). Vidimian 09:29, 26 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. This island is not visitable, and won't be for the foreseeable future.... not necessary here – cacahuate talk 19:38, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep, for now. Let's at least wait until the deletion discussion for the article is complete. If the article is kept, we'll want this photo. LtPowers 09:01, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep --Tiagox2 14:41, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
The article wasn't kept, what's your current positions on this image? – cacahuate talk 01:40, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
I think I'm still Keep, since the article title redirects to the region next up in the hierarchy. It's also possible some other language version might come to a different conclusion about the suitability of the island for an article than :en: did. LtPowers 09:17, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. I don't see any reason to delete, and it's not as though we don't mention the island in our guides. --Peter Talk 13:16, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

Images by user Renikk[edit]

This user has uploaded a number of maps and photos relating to Kochi (Kerala). The most recent of these was a re-work of a map I drew, which he released into the public domain as his own work, when the map was licenced CC-by-SA 3.0. There is a discussion about this at en.

After this incident, I am more than suspicious of other images uploaded by this user as "PD self". There are lots of photos plus several bus maps and a ferry map. See: .

Suspicion grows deeper as the user has no edit history or identity at en. Not quite sure what to make of this?--Burmesedays 11:43, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

The maps could very well be legit, but it's obvious this user has a tenuous grasp of copyright. That waterfall image turned up 5 results on TinEye, and although none was clearly labeled as copyrighted, it's obvious this guy didn't take the photo himself. LtPowers 14:33, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
I have corrected the licencing and credits of Image:Colour code map Kochi.PNG rather than VFDing it. This user bothers me a lot. It is clear from the edit pattern that this must be the same person as User Kish at en but for some reason he denies that.--Burmesedays 09:49, 30 May 2010 (EDT)
That's a strong accusation; are you sure the evidence points exclusively in that direction? LtPowers 15:04, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
I am not sure we should be debating this here, but as sure as I can be, yes. Just one example. En user Kish asserts he knew nothing about the copyvio Kochi map but, to quote, "When going thro' shared, I found a Coloured map, so though to start districting, by attempting to produce similar colour coded districts in article" [32]. That map was added to shared 1 minute before it appeared in the Kochi (Kerala) article - see added to shared and added to the en article. So in that one minute, the user just happened to browse Shared and find a new district coded map for Kochi. --Burmesedays 06:43, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Logo with Brand CAI copy.jpg[edit]

Logo of the Culinary Academy of India. No copyright notice on the web page, but we should assume it's copyrighted anyway. LtPowers 08:35, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Copyright aside, it is completely out of scope.--Burmesedays 10:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Uploads from User:Solimar[edit]

These images are credited to the Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance. They are a partnership involving the U.S. Agency for International Development, a federal agency, but I don't think we can extrapolate PD-FED from that relationship. The GSTA is not a branch of the U.S. federal government and so the things it produces are not automatically in the public domain. Furthermore, these images don't seem to have come from GSTA anyway; aside from not really looking like GSTA content, I also got at least two matches on TinEye: [33] [34].

I recommend we delete the lot, especially the second one, which is so small as to be useless. But it could be that I'm missing something. Please review.

-- LtPowers 08:55, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete all. Most are out of scope images of hotels in any case.--Burmesedays 11:54, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Senegal Car rapide.jpg[edit]

Both images say "All rights reserved" on Flickr. It's possible User:Tiagox2 uploaded them while the Flickr pages indicated different licensing, but I can't verify that. LtPowers 17:25, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Actually, I copied the image and all the information from wikimedia commons, and they were reviewed and mantained:
Tiagox2 14:39, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Sorry about that. For future reference, it may be useful to put a note in the "permission" field indicating that the licensing was recorded and verified at Commons. LtPowers 16:50, 29 May 2010 (EDT)


This was VFD'd at en but is hosted here. Obviously based on non-free maps as the attribution clearly states. An obvious copyvio which should be speedied I think.--Burmesedays 10:51, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete, as I suggested on en. The image apparently is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, but it seems based on copyrighted maps. --globe-trotter 08:03, 28 May 2010 (EDT)


Unfortunately, pictures taken of the Tiffany Windows are not allowed to be used for commercial purposes, so this must be deleted. ChubbyWimbus 21:47, 3 November 2009 (EST)

I investigated the copyright status of this image when I saw it on the front page. states that the triptychs "date from 1907-1917". According to, any work published (which in the case of artworks means displayed in public) before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S. LtPowers 09:29, 4 November 2009 (EST)
So this means that the image may remain? I really hope that it does, because I think it completes the Franklin page, which I also nominated as a OtBP, but I definitely want to make sure that it's okay. Just to be certain, it was the church staff themselves that stated this, not the Tiffany Corporation. ChubbyWimbus
The church owns the windows themselves (you can't legally remove them from the church), but the copyright on the design has expired, regardless of who originally possessed it (so you legally can do whatever you want with a copy of the windows). It's possible the church could impose photography restrictions on those whom they grant permission to enter the building, since it is private property, but that has no impact on copyright (unless you entered into a legally binding contract in which you promised not to sell your photographs or something). LtPowers 13:25, 5 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. Yep, we actually have a licensing template for such cases: Template:PD-old. It looks like your shot has enough of a personal touch, though, where you hold copyright to the photo, and can thus choose a CC license, as you have done. --Peter Talk 01:46, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Was the photo taken from a public space? Often there is a condition of entry imposed on the use of photos that you may take. In which case copyright and public domain don't really enter in to the equation. --Inas 21:31, 5 November 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure what you mean. Such conditions of entry shouldn't affect copyright, even if the photos were taken without permission... unless the photographer agreed to assign his rights to the church or something. LtPowers 11:20, 6 November 2009 (EST)
It isn't unusual for institutions to impose a condition of entry that photographs may either not be taken, or more usually to say that they may not be used commercially. I am assuming that this is the case here, and all I've go to go on is that the church staff said it wasn't okay to use the photos commercially. Private property owners have the authority in the U.S. and elsewhere to impose conditions in advance for photographs taken on their property.
So, in this case, the owner of the photograph may have had no right to licence the photo CC-BY-SA.
If this is what happened here, I think we shoudl delete the image. Unless someone thinks a principled stand against either the church or the photographer is in order. --Inas 21:16, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Sorry, LtPowers is correct here. The church can impose any condition it wants on people entering, and can sue the photographer for trespass, contract violation or whatever... but this has zero relevance to the copyright status of any photographs taken by the photographer, which depict public domain objects that the church does not hold a copyright in. So, no, there is absolutely no reason for us to delete this photo. Jpatokal 01:33, 9 November 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry I continue to be unclear. I know it has no impact on the copyright status of the photo. That is what I meant by saying copyright and public domain don't really enter in to the equation. We do delete photos for reason other than copyright.
There is another issue to consider here. My understanding is that a user has realised that they have uploaded a photo when they were not authorised to do so. If that user asks us to delete it, then I think we should do so. Why would we want one of our users who has made an honest mistake and who wants to rectify that mistake, to not be able to do so?
If that is the case here, that the user who took the photo, and now realises they have done something illegal and wants it to be deleted, I would certainly support deleting it.
If they are happy to breach their contract, and want the photo to remain, then that is their call. --Inas 19:08, 9 November 2009 (EST)
If ChubbyWimbus is unwilling to take the risk, I'm fine with removing the image, I guess. But I think it unlikely that the church's entry conditions (don't take photos and sell them) would be enforceable after the fact, so I don't think he has much to worry about if he chooses to leave the image here. LtPowers 18:42, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Depends on your perspective. If someone told me I wasn't allowed to take commercial photos, and I inadvertently uploaded it with a commercial use licence, personally I would want to do what was right, and what I had agreed to do, and remove the image. Does everything have to be viewed in terms of the likelihood of being successfully sued these days? However, I see it as ChubbyWimbus's call, and it is unclear whether that is to delete, or not. --Inas 22:07, 2 December 2009 (EST)

I don't see it as a matter of being sued or not, but whether the church has a right to expect such a requirement to be followed. They own the physical medium, but they do not own the artwork as a concept; it belongs to the public. LtPowers 11:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I appologize for not following up on this. I uploaded it in order to highlight one of the city's more interesting sites for it to be featured (probably with this picture on the main page), but if it's a violation, then it should go. Do you think it would be best for me to send an e-mail to the church? ChubbyWimbus 15:57, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
The image doesn't violate any of our policies, nor any copyright law, as far as any of us can tell. What we can't tell is a) if a non-commercial restriction was imposed on you by the church as a condition of your entry, b) if such a restriction would even be enforceable after the fact, and c) whether you feel you should respect that restriction or not. If you leave it up to us, we'll keep it because the windows are in the public domain. If you want us to take it down so as to respect the church's wishes (if that's what they are), we will. But it's up to you. LtPowers 20:30, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

June 2010[edit]


  • Delete. Category duplicated as Category:Seville. I fixed all images at Seville, so it's empty. Jatrobat 12:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Can a category be re-directed? If so, redirect to Category:Seville.--Burmesedays 22:02, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
    • I think Mediawiki sort-of allows category redirects but they don't work as one might expect. Another reason we might want to consider having gallery pages in addition to our category structure. The Wikimedia wikis often use "soft redirects", or a template pointing users to the correct category. LtPowers 09:29, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
It's odd that we haven't discussed image category redirects before, but I've been speedy deleting these for years for one clear reason: it's best that they show up as red links. Otherwise, if someone sees the blue link at the bottom of the image page after adding [[Category:Sevilla]], they'll have no way of realizing that they sent the image to the wrong category.
I'd suggest that we take this discussion elsewhere, but it seems we don't have any policy pages regarding use of categories on Shared!! --Peter Talk 11:51, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
For reference on technical limitations, please see Wikipedia:Template talk:Category redirect#What this template is for. LtPowers 21:48, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. At least for now. If someone feels like establishing clear policy on Categories on Shared, they may do so in the appropriate fora. LtPowers 16:17, 16 June 2010 (EDT)


This clearly professional shot gives many positive returns on tineye, but this appears to be the original at Flickr, all rights reserved. --Burmesedays 01:34, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Result: Deleted. Copyvio. LtPowers 16:17, 16 June 2010 (EDT)


Appears to be a copyvio from --Burmesedays 00:38, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

replace with: found through creative commons. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Isn't that a picture of en:Providence, not en:East Providence? LtPowers 17:32, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

yes, the caption can read: Providence skyline from East Providence —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Well, that's a discussion for East Providence talk page. LtPowers 11:31, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Replacement can be discussed elsewhere. LtPowers 16:17, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Cuba Family Photos[edit]

There are some photos on the Cuban pages that were obviously taken during a family vacation and feature the family members:

The last one is of fruit vendors, so I'm not exactly sure if that's allowed or not. ChubbyWimbus 16:46, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. A fruit vendor is a fruit vendor. LtPowers 16:17, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

June 2010[edit]

Images by Special:Contributions/Stephen sommerhalter[edit]

Our only objector to the 3.0 license upgrade.... his text contributions have already been deleted.... while these 3 images were actually licensed by him under ccbysa 3.0, making them clearly keepable, I'm suggesting we go ahead and delete them since he is being persistent, and they aren't of good enough quality to make a difference to the guides anyhow.

  • Deletecacahuate talk 02:32, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. For the sake of a quiet life. --Burmesedays 06:45, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. When a user has uploaded files mistakenly, without having realized the implications of the license, I think it's fine to quickly remove them upon request—but not when so much time has gone by. By deleting them, we would complicate things for re-users who are legitimately using these images or derivations thereof. (And that appears to be precisely the aim of the uploader.) That Mr. Sommerhalter attempted to get rid of them by abusing the license upgrade process does not warm my heart to his request... --Peter Talk 21:01, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
If they were worth keeping I would probably agree with you – cacahuate talk 00:08, 8 June 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete - People in photos. Texugo 10:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Burmesedays 22:01, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Dreams Villamagna.jpg[edit]

TinEye finds some results; they're all smaller than this one but I think it's clear this is a hotel's promotional image and shouldn't be kept. LtPowers 15:42, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Also Image:Hcom 2229366 27 b.jpg, from the same uploader. This one at least has some description and claims to be self-made, but a cropped version shows up here and it looks professionally made. LtPowers 15:42, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:25844 384825954919 513129919 3642932 8089082 n.jpg[edit]

Bad photo of a piece of art. Copyright and scope issues. Also Image:25844 384826089919 513129919 3642950 5854273 n.jpg.

  • Delete.--Burmesedays 22:21, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
    • Don't forget the {{vfd}} templates! LtPowers 16:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Ah yes. Whoops :). --Burmesedays 23:25, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:City Tour Map.gif[edit]

Available on several sites around the Internet (for example), but that's no excuse for hosting it here. We have to presume it's copyrighted. LtPowers 11:16, 4 June 2010 (EDT)


Montages are out of scope by definition. And how likely is it that the uploader owns each of the images used in the composition? LtPowers 11:16, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:163 planplan.png[edit]

Out of scope, totally useless. LtPowers 11:16, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Wheel of Konark.gif[edit]

1x1-pixel GIF. Probably an error. LtPowers 13:06, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Bkktours ayu1.JPG[edit]

TinEye shows a result. There are a number of plausible explanations, but without any copyright or authorship info, I think keeping this image would be a mistake. LtPowers 13:06, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Touriste sur Crocodile de Bazoulé.jpg[edit]

Identifiable person. LtPowers 19:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Femme du Sahel.jpg[edit]

Identifiable person. LtPowers 19:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Conveyor Belt Sushi in Tokyo.jpg[edit]

Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 19:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Hotel Nikko.jpg[edit]

Image is used elsewhere on the web (like TripAdvisor and Travelocity). While it was uploaded by User:Hotel Nikko San Francisco, that alone is not sufficient evidence of ownership. Regardless of copyright status, though, it's just a picture of a rather generic-looking hotel and thus out of scope. LtPowers 19:03, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:View from Park Hyatt Tokyo.jpg[edit]

Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 19:09, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Images by User:Roadrunner[edit]

User used the proper Flickr template, making it easy to see that these are blatant copyvios. The images are all marked "All rights reserved" on Flickr. LtPowers 11:44, 13 June 2010 (EDT)


No source or license information in addition to a recognizable face in the photo. Vidimian 06:01, 16 June 2010 (EDT)


No source or license information in addition to being a pretty pointless photo. Vidimian 06:01, 16 June 2010 (EDT)


Useless at this resolution. It's from Commons, too (see commons:File:Lagos Map.PNG), where I've nominated it for deletion due to licensing problems. LtPowers 20:56, 18 June 2010 (EDT)


Copyvio from LtPowers 20:56, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Obvious copyright violations can be deleted on sight, IMO. Riggwelter 08:20, 20 June 2010 (EDT)


Advertisement. Out of scope. LtPowers 16:31, 22 June 2010 (EDT)


Advertisements are out of scope. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Cotopaxi 11.jpg[edit]

Less obviously an ad, but I still don't want to encourage this. Note that the uploader is User:Arie´s Bike Company. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Hotel Matera[edit]

Two identical images. Although they've been cropped and post-processed, it's clear that they were taken from another source (see, for instance, [35]). TinEye makes it quite obvious because the shadows and everything are identical. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)


Somehow I doubt the uploader made these himself. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Any proof of that? I do not see any problem as such to delete them, but I think we need to be a little more strict when we motivate why something should be deleted. Riggwelter 16:30, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
It's rare we get professional cartographers around here; amateurs with the inclination tend to follow the house style, which this is not. Nonetheless, I did find the original source: LtPowers 21:44, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
Well done! Both are deleted. Riggwelter 11:44, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Tandamata store at DiscoveryMall.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Image of a souvenir shop, and essentially an advertisement and thus not relevant to a travel guide. Additionally, no license specified. -- Ryan 00:51, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Fortaleza de Sao Sebastião.jpg[edit]

My mistake. I already re-uploaded the image (Image:Fortaleza de Sao Sebastiao.jpg). --Tiagox2 11:51, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Moscow Kremlin overview map.png[edit]

This image is used all over the Kremlin web site, according to TinEye. I can't access the site, but I would be stunned if it had anything resembling a CC-by-sa license on it. LtPowers 17:22, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Deleted. Riggwelter 12:13, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Kremlin birds eye view-3.jpg[edit]

Listed source gives me a 404 error, so I can't verify the licensing. LtPowers 17:22, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Deleted. Riggwelter 12:13, 11 July 2010 (EDT)



In other languages