YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Votes for deletion/Archive July-Dec 2009

From Wikitravel Shared
Votes for deletion : Archive July-Dec 2009
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for deletion/Archive July-Dec 2009

Default Banner.jpg

This is an archive of images and other files whose VFDs closed between Jul. 2009 and Dec. 2009


July 2009[edit]


Presumably from Flickr, but no ID or user given for tracking it down, so license is suspect (see previous nom). Jpatokal 11:56, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Unless Marina can provide sources for her images, I think all her unsourced uploads should be deleted. (There are a good number of them [1]). I think this is an appropriate tack for any situation when a contributor has demonstrated that she either does not understand our copyleft, or otherwise is not respecting image licensing/copyright. --Peter Talk 16:10, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
I wanted to vote to delete since I agree with Jani and Peter. As to this image, I found it on Flickr and its license was cc-by-2.0. But I still want to vote to delete, since I think we had better deal severely with those uploaders' behavior like as Wikimedia Commons. -- Tatata 11:08, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Keep. Other images can be nominated separately, but this one now has correct attribution information, and I verified that the license is indeed cc-by-2.0. LtPowers 13:49, 30 July 2009 (EDT)


Not useful, and likely a copyvio – cacahuate talk 16:35, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 14:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)


Not travel related or useful – cacahuate talk 16:35, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 14:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:R V Hinds, Carver.JPG[edit]

Too much focus on an individual? --Inas 02:34, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. The individual probably wouldn't mind, as it's free advertising for him, but it's still against our policy, and no one made a case for an exception. LtPowers 14:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)


Image:全景01.jpg cannot be used as thumbnail because of its file name, and very suspicious of copyvio[2]. -- Tatata 10:23, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. Copyvio, bad filename. It's linked in a tech report but that's no reason to keep the file around. LtPowers 14:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Calmac Ardrossan.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. License violation : this image is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0.[3] -- Tatata 11:30, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 14:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)



  • Delete. Just an ad. --Inas 20:03, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 14:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

All uploads today by Special:Contributions/Magda.myka[edit]

These are all much to small for use in our guides, and some have strange text on them, possibly pulled from a website and potential copyvios? – cacahuate talk 16:35, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. I admit I didn't check every one of these many images for usage, but none of the ones I did check were in use on :en, :ca, or :es. LtPowers 14:37, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

All images uploaded by Rheinland-Pfalz[edit]

  • Keep. I had a mail discussion with charlotte.jakobsen at, who was working on behalf of state tourism company/copyright holder Rheinland-Pfalz Tourismus GmbH. I told her about CC licensing, and she said "But it is pictures from our own database, which is open for anyone to use on our [their?] webpage" → so these should be fine. Jpatokal 21:30, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept sertmann 22:40, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


Found it on the Beijing page. It's obviously a postcard. ChubbyWimbus 16:41, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Delete, but for licensing reasons instead. It looks like the border was added by the photographer, judging by the flickr source page [4] - but it's also licensed non-commercial/non-derivative (cc-by-nc-nd 2.0), which isn't one of the approved licenses. - Dguillaime 17:13, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted sertmann 22:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Noblesville Indiana Lady Shoppers 3.jpg[edit]

  • Recognizable individuals. LtPowers 13:41, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
    • And a quick glance at the uploader's contributions shows a number of other possible violations of our image policies. I'm sure they were uploaded in good faith, though. LtPowers 13:45, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted sertmann 22:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Category talk:Soma (Fukushima)[edit]

Category talk:Soma[edit]

Talk:Multilingual statistics/2007 =[edit]

  • Delete. graffiti --Rein N. 05:18, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Speedily deleted by multiple users, repeatedly. LtPowers 14:22, 30 July 2009 (EDT)


  • Delete. Incorrect place name. - aiko99ann 07:33, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
Deleted on up-loaders request Sertmann 18:55, 22 July 2009 (EDT)


  • Speedy Delete spam page --Rein N. 14:46, 24 July 2009 (EDT)


  • Speedy Delete spam page --Rein N. 14:53, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

August 2009[edit]

Uploads by User:ClausHansen[edit]

Image:HouHaiByNight.jpg is not licensed under cc-by-2.0 but cc-by-nc-nd-2.0.

  • Delete -- Tatata 11:19, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete --GF 15:48, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Note This one has already been nominated; its closure is pending above. LtPowers 10:58, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:JiangxinIsland.jpg, Image:Dabei.jpg, Image:MuseumofAncientArchitecture.jpg, Image:QianmenDajie.jpg, Image:MuseumofAncientArchitecture.jpg, Image:PekingOpera.jpg, Image:OxstreetMosque.jpg, Image:WaterCubeBeijing.jpg, Image:BellTower.jpg, Image:ConfuciusTempleBeijing.jpg , Image:KalundborgBishophome.jpg, Image:KalundborgChurch.jpg, Image:Kalundborg.jpg, Image:Songzhuang.jpg Image:ForbiddenCity2.jpg, Image:ForbiddenCity.jpg, Image:MaoMemorialHall.jpg Image:Deshengmen.jpg, Image:PrinceGongsMansion.jpg, Image:WhiteCloudTemple.jpg, Image:BeijingZooEntrance.jpg, Image:YandangMountain.jpg is tagged as "All rights reserved".

  • Delete -- Tatata 11:27, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • speedyDelete --GF 15:16, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Tianjintvtower.jpg, Image:NationalMuseumChina.jpg, Image:Yonghegong.jpg is not licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0 but cc-by-nc-2.0.

  • Delete -- Tatata 11:34, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete --GF 15:48, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete all, although I do note that the licenses may have changed on Flickr since the time these files were uploaded. LtPowers 10:58, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Narvik_WarMemorialMuseum.jpg [edit]

  • Delete I has just uploaded the same image. --aiko99ann
  • Speedy deleted. Per uploader request; duplicate. --Peter Talk 18:21, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


  • Speedy deleted. Per uploader request; duplicate. --Peter Talk 18:21, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


  • Speedy deleted. Per uploader request; duplicate. --Peter Talk 18:21, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


  • Delete the file name is incorrect. --Aiko99ann 08:27, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
    • Speedy deleted per request. LtPowers 11:27, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Image:Map Leh.jpg[edit]

Almost certainly a copyvio incorrectly asserted as PD-self. Jpatokal 07:08, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Map of Balatonfured.jpg[edit]

delete from Google Maps --Gf 10:24, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedy deleted obvious copyvio. LtPowers 16:32, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

August 2009[edit]

User:Valleycenterwc, User talk:Valleycenterwc[edit]

  • Delete. Non-travel-related advertising, already deleted (twice!) on :en. - Dguillaime 02:08, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


  • Delete. Copyvio from [5], no license given; also too small to be of any use. - Dguillaime 02:08, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Hussain sagar.jpg &Image:Ntr gardens.jpg[edit]

Incorrect licenses (no-derivs) [6] and [7]Ravikiran 05:26, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

September 2009[edit]


Violates image policy: recognizable individual. LtPowers 19:34, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Looks like a holiday snap. --Inas 06:51, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Nenets reindeer sledge.jpg[edit]

In this edit [8] the user requires an attribution method currently inconsistent with the practice for how we attribute photos. The photo isn't essential to the article, and since the original author didn't upload the image here, and since they have since changed the licencing of the image, I think we should act in good faith and remove the image. --Inas 22:15, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. The author didn't change the licensing on Flickr—she released it (the lower resolution image only) under CC-by-SA 3.0 in private correspondence with me. I'll try to clear things up with her (if that was her editing). And it is the only image of Nenetsia on the web under an open-content license... --Peter Talk 17:07, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
I've spoken with the author, and she has no problem with the image remaining on Wikitravel. --Peter Talk 00:05, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedy Keep. Thanks to Peter's good work in following this up, any reason for deletion has evaporated. --Inas 06:50, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • 'Keep sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


  • Delete I uploaded that picture with a wrong name. I tried to rename it by move function, but it didn't work. So I uploaded the same picture with right name and this P8060535 should be deleted. Kulmalukko 04:21, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
    • Speedy deleted as duplicate file and uploader request. LtPowers 19:31, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Image:Nyhavn lego.jpg[edit]

I hate to do this, but I think that LEGO constructions are copyrightable as works of sculpture. That makes this image a derivative work and thus a copyright violation. LtPowers 16:42, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Commons have serveral pictures of legoland models [9] and they are as Nazi about this as we are (bar the fair-use hell), Google yields nothing [10], the picture is taken by a French citizen, in Denmark, and uploaded by a Dane [11] not exactly sure how American copyright works with servers, but it might not even fall under US jurisdiction, since recent lawsuits [12] are against the individiual uploader rather than the server owner, and I'm sure I'm not breaking any Danish copyright laws... and I really like the the darn picture. sertmann 17:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
commons:COM:FOP says that Danish freedom of panorama applies only to architecture. I admit I'm not a lawyer, but the implication seems plain to me. LtPowers 20:09, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, realized that too reading up on this later on - and hence also had to delete The Little Mermaid statue pictures, nothing much, just Copenhagen's symbol, and a top 3 attraction *sigh!* I've send an email to Legolands press department asking for permission yesterday, though, no response yet. My guess is they are completely baffled by the request, and don't have a clue on how to react sertmann 20:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, sucks, doesn't it? Apparently the sculptor's family has been pretty stringent about enforcing the copyright (which, according to commons, doesn't expire until 2030). If someone were to publish and sell a travel guide to Copenhagen or Denmark using Wikitravel information, an image of the Mermaid would be very problematic for that reason. LtPowers 10:11, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
Can't we use these types of image under "editorial use" or whatever? And leave a note to potential redistributors on the image page? --Peter Talk 12:35, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
Yes, we can, under US law.
To make this issue way broader, we should decide sooner rather than later whether Wikitravel Shared is intended to be a broad-use strictly controlled free image repository like Commons (in which case we need to be anal about stuff like FOP), or whether it's intended specifically to support Wikitravel the website (in which case we can use pictures of things and people very broadly under the "editorial use" clause of US law, and ignore the problem of reuse outside WT). Jpatokal 02:37, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
I don't even know what "editorial use" means. But regardless, I was under the impression we were attempting to create "Free travel guides", with "free" as in "speech" not as in "beer". LtPowers 16:25, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
Editorial use: [13] Jpatokal 23:21, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Ah, but the images are being used for commerical gain -- thus the ads on the sidebars. LtPowers 09:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
Newspapers have ads too, and they have editorial use rights. This explanation is better:
"Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used purely for "advertising purposes." While the photograph of a person may be used for something that is sold for profit, such as in a book or a print, that is not the test for a commercial use. Instead, using a picture of a person without consent gives rise to a claim for violating the person's right of publicity only when it injures the economic interests of the person due to commercial exploitation. In sum, if someone looking at a photograph would think that the person in it is promoting or endorsing a commercial product affiliated with the photograph, then the use is commercial." From [14], emphases mine. Jpatokal 02:54, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Interesting. As the attorney points out, however, it can often be difficult to tell whether something is valid editorial use. I think we're better off legally if we keep to our policy of allowing only free-as-in-speech images and not trying to arbitrate whether a particular usage can be considered fair or editorial use (especially since there are issues of jurisdiction to consider as well). LtPowers 13:39, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure about that. On one side a resounding 'Yes', on the other hand I'm not sure we are able to, there are some quite substantial differences between US, British and continental copyright. This picture provided a good example, should we follow Danish (where the picture is taken), French (where the photographer is from) or US (where the server is located) copyright regulations? if any of the two former; are we able to regulate this? we might be OK for Japan, the US, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, Russia, Australia etc., but what if we are dealing with pictures taken in, or a photographer from Transnistria, Bukina Faso, Bhutan or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Can we really manage to check copyright issues each time a picture is uploaded? a nice example is if we follow Italian copyright, we have to delete every single picture from Italy that includes any kind of building less than 70 years old.[15] It would be much simpler to have for profit re-publishers check with their legal department. sertmann 18:51, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

Not just for-profit re-users, although they're the ones most likely to attract attention. LtPowers 21:57, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
Copyright always rests with the physical location of the object, so if the object is in Denmark, Danish law applies. However, since we host our copy (the picture) in the United States, we can also apply US law which, while recognizing the original copyright, also allows a slew of exceptions like fair use, editorial use, etc. Jpatokal 23:21, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

OK, so permission obtained, it's kind of shrewd, but I don't see anywhere in our policy that disallows copyright notices, no? sertmann 04:08, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Interesting case, but I suppose it falls under CC Attribution to require that both Sertmann and the LEGO Group are credited as authors. Jpatokal 11:21, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm not a big fan of the watermark, but I think continuing to object to this image would be churlish on my part. LtPowers 09:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept

October 2009[edit]


  • Delete. The city of the same name is Hiroshima prefecture. New category is drawn up with appropriate name.(New name Category:Fuchu (Tokyo)木更津乃風 11:01, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

November 2009[edit]


  • Delete. Unless I've missed something, the only acceptable articles on Shared are image categories, policy pages, and tech requests. --Peter Talk 18:30, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
No harm done, in my view, just redirect to Category:Portugal. Jpatokal 22:35, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
Wrote that before looking at the page, and damn, somebody's put a lot of work into it... but no harm in copying it to Category:Portugal, I presume? Jpatokal 22:37, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Holy crap, that was a ton of work! Before deleting though, let's make sure to add cat:portugal to each of the images – cacahuate talk 23:17, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. I can't find a written policy that prohibits this type of page, and it seems to have great value in that it categorizes and annotates images that would otherwise be lumped together in Category:Portugal and its geographic subcategories. LtPowers 07:47, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Perhaps it should be written, but I don't think anyone could have foreseen this before it happened :) Current consensus & practice is to use categories. Creating country pages would be a totally new direction for Shared, and should be discussed somewhere other than VFD if it's a direction we want to take. I can appreciate the effort this user put into the page, but I find it highly unlikely that we will take things in this direction, especially considering the amount of manual work involved – cacahuate talk 15:24, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
I seem to recall being told that I had to reference specific policies that support deletion, but maybe that was just on :en. LtPowers 18:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
That was also a situation where your vote ran counter to policy, restored a nomination speedy kept by another administrator, ran counter to all practice throughout the history of the site, and had the sole effects of serving as an insult to me, furthering drama that wasted a lot of other peoples' time and effort, encouraging an editor in misuse of process who had just returned from Wikitravel's first ever and only user ban, and generally contributing to the less collegial and friendly atmosphere that we have today between regular editors.
In this case, we don't have a "What is an article?" policy here because we don't have articles. We don't have a policy here stating that users can't write articles on sink installation either, but it runs clearly enough counter to practice that I think a delete (or a redirect per Jani's suggestion) would be sensible. I think we would need a policy discussion before introducing an entirely new category of work into Shared, but I think, given the work that has gone into this, it would be best to move it into the users' userspace until we have a discussion regarding organization of content—our category system is sub-optimal. --Peter Talk 06:12, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
I don't see what is the problem with this page. Afterall, there are other pages like this one, like Spain, and there is no written policy that prohibits this page. --Tiagox2 11:07, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
I just speedy deleted Spain, as it seemed a clear mistake, and lacked any useful content. One important issue that has not yet been brought up is that the main namespace on Shared is used for policy articles, and should not be mixed with image categorizing, which we have left solely up to our category namespace. There might be a place for this type of page, but I think we should move it out of the main namespace, and get a discussion going. --Peter Talk 20:21, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
In the Deletion policy says: "if we get plenty of pictures from the same location, an article page may be used and the images put into a gallery on that page".
That was added (without discussion, as far as I can see) prior to the use of categories, which render them irrelevant anyhow. It was never implemented, and runs counter to practice. I'll update the policy now to reflect that – cacahuate talk 16:22, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Categories do not entirely render article-space pages irrelevant. Mostly, maybe. =) LtPowers 21:48, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Do you have an example of something that belongs in the main namespace, that isn't a policy page, and that wouldn't make a category redundant? Though we should prob discuss this elsewhere  :) – cacahuate talk 21:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep I don't see any harm in keeping this page, and someone put so much hard work into that, I'd really feel bad deleting it. sertmann 16:33, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Map of Korea.jpg[edit]

(See also previous VFDs: one, two.)

Although the image does have a letter of permission, that letter only licenses itself under cc-by-sa-1.0, not the image! The letter only gives Paula permission to use the image - not WT, not anyone else - and it doesn't permit derivative works, all of which are requirements. - Dguillaime 15:20, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. I think the intent of the letter is clear, there may just be a bit of a language barrier :) I don't agree at all that it should have been uploaded a third (!!!) time without discussion, as I mentioned on Paula's talk page, but I think we should not drag this out, especially considering the pace at which WT country maps are being created.... this map will be irrelevant I'm sure by the end of the year – cacahuate talk 15:28, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
FWIW, it's now irrelevant. --Peter Talk 02:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
Irrelevant how? LtPowers 13:54, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
We don't need to keep the suspicious copyvio image with weird permission email, since we have WT style map for the country which created by Peter. -- Tatata 00:21, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted as redundant. LtPowers 19:40, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Ebla panoramic.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Not useful in a travel guide – cacahuate talk 02:47, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Why so? I don't see anything wrong with it... except maybe the insane resolution (10000px!). Jpatokal 00:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
      • I'm with Cacahuate -- I don't see how you could use this image in a travel guide, given its odd shape. LtPowers 13:50, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
        • Just to be clear: Delete, as it's poorly stitched in addition to being oddly shaped and way too wide. LtPowers 13:54, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted sertmann 09:21, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Paradise Bay Eco Escape aerial.jpg[edit]

  • Delete Spam --GF 15:00, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted. LtPowers 19:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)


Uses google maps for data, could be redone with [16] data instead, but I'm not volunteering. sertmann 20:37, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Outcome: Deleted. LtPowers 19:45, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Uzbeki girl.jpg[edit]

reconcilable person, privacy rights --Rein N. 21:41, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete per nominator. NB: Her decoration made of USSR coins. ;-) -- Sergey kudryavtsev 03:58, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted. LtPowers 19:49, 2 November 2009 (EST)


Copyvio. This image is "All rights reserved".[17] -- Tatata 09:30, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted. LtPowers 19:52, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Entebbe Kampala Route.jpg[edit]

No license, no source. LtPowers 21:01, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Looks like a screenshot from Google Maps. Jpatokal 23:12, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:27, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Kocani grb.gif[edit]

Out of scope; not useful for travel guides. LtPowers 16:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT) Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:27, 17 November 2009 (EST)


No license, no source, recognizable individuals. LtPowers 10:59, 6 October 2009 (EDT) Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Map of Kilkenny City.jpg[edit]

Blatantly lifted from Google Maps. And on a featured OtBP article, too! LtPowers 09:19, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Copyvio from, and we wouldn't keep it even if it wasn't, since we have no use for interior photos of individual businesses. LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Copyvio from, and we wouldn't keep it even if it wasn't, thanks to the drop shadow and the general uselessness of a photo of an empty dining room. LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Black Rock Harbor.jpg[edit]

Likely copyvio from (how nice of the uploaded to provide URLs for all these images). LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)


OK, I can't prove this one's a copyvio, but given the uploader's track record, I'd bet money on it, especially since it came from BlogSpot. LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. It's from this post, which doesn't seem like the same user and certainly has no licensing information. - Dguillaime 13:37, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:July course.jpg[edit]

License violation. This image is licensed under cc-by-nd-2.0.[18]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 20:18, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete -- sertmann 22:21, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Another one from User:Bribabe1214. I've left the user a message. LtPowers 14:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT) Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Out of scope; we don't generally use montages. LtPowers 14:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Picture of non-notable hotel sertmann 16:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:DSC 0197 .jpg[edit]

Duplicate of Image:Amber sound and light show at Jaipur.jpg.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 04:43, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:34, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Arran camping.jpg[edit]

This image is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 on Flickr. If the uploader is the same person of the Flickr user, he/she should prove that both accounts are owned by the same person and/or the license on Flickr should be changed to cc-by-sa-2.0 or cc-by-2.0.

  • Delete, if no appropriate action within 14 days. -- Tatata 07:38, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep I am the owner of the photo and the fickr account in question and I have amended the license on flickr. Tarr3n 08:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)
    • OK, I put a license review template on the image page. Thank you very much for your action. :-) -- Tatata 11:49, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Kept sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Willow Tree[edit]

Both are derivative works of a presumably copyrighted logo. And they're out of scope to boot. LtPowers 10:36, 2 November 2009 (EST) Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Lincoln Sign.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of the text and logo present on the sign. LtPowers 10:36, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Plunge forward/ko[edit]

This translation page was created to prepare for ko:, and was copied to ko:Wikitravel:돌격 앞으로. This page is not needed to help upload to shared.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 21:18, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)


Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Xian HHH.jpg[edit]

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Historic district.JPG[edit]

Also Image:Historicdistrict.JPG (identical copy)

  • Another sign with copyrighted text on it. Again from User:Ariel. Anyone know where he/she's active? LtPowers 13:36, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Image:Welcome to M.JPG[edit]

Also Image:WelcometoM.JPG (identical copy)

  • Another one from User:Ariel. Every village in America has one of these, I think. There's nothing special about this one, and it includes several copyrighted logos. LtPowers 13:36, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)


We don't use category like this and native admin of Korean version says that it is unnecessary.[19]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 10:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)


This is one of my own photos and I somehow uploaded 2 versions of the same image - see Image:Nusa_Lembongan_seaweedfarming.jpg. For the sake of tidiness, please delete one of them. --Burmesedays 09:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

No problem. Deleted. LtPowers 10:15, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Outcome Deleted sertmann 09:39, 17 November 2009 (EST)

November 2009[edit]

December 2009[edit]


License violation. This image is licensed under cc-by-nd-2.0.[20]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 05:14, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Image:2196335324 3645f85468 b.jpg[edit]

Incompatible license, no derivs. sertmann 14:30, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Some uploads by User:Visitestonia[edit]

The images below are licensed under a Non Commercial Creative Commons license, and hence cannot be used on wikitravel. sertmann 13:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)


This has been the lead image in the Wikitravel Bali article for ages and I guess it should not have been given the multitude of identifiable people. I have removed it from the article. It also seems to be uploaded directly to Wikitravel en namespace (??) and not to shared (??), hence my web linking it in the title above. And it has no licensing information. --Burmesedays 01:15, 2 November 2009 (EST)

English Wikitravel has its own VfD process - please use that instead of this. LtPowers 10:14, 2 November 2009 (EST)
And the image should be kept anyway. Performers in a public festival have no expectation of privacy and the half-hidden performers are totally incidental to the focus of the image, namely the crazy fruit hats! Jpatokal 11:54, 2 November 2009 (EST)
I wasn't sure if they were performers or just going to market with a lot of fruit. LtPowers 19:24, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Point taken. I guess the identity of the people is peripheral to the subject of the image. Out of interest, how do you upload an image to en Wikitravel and not to shared? And where is the licence information for this image? --Burmesedays 21:05, 2 November 2009 (EST)
I believe we didn't have a central repository once upon a time, so uploading to :en was standard. Today, though, the practice is strongly discouraged, since we want all files easily accessible to people working on all language versions. Hence, we removed all links to the :en upload form. --Peter 21:31, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Also, by default everything on en: is CC by-sa 1.0. Jpatokal 11:32, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: No action possible on Shared. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Fairmont Vancouver.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted image in Flickr [21]. The user (User:Guyfrombronx) uploaded a couple of images from different Flickr accounts (that I've tracked so far), so I'm guessing he/she didn't take the photographs. Shaund 23:51, 10 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Vancouver art gallery.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted image in Flickr [22]. Also uploaded by User:Guyfrombronx. Shaund 23:51, 10 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Pacific Central1.jpg[edit]

Another copyrighted image in Flickr from User:Guyfrombronx [23]. Shaund 00:24, 11 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Stanley Park Totem2.jpg[edit]

Another copyrighted image in Flickr from User:Guyfrombronx [24]. Shaund 00:24, 11 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)


And one more [25]. Shaund 00:46, 11 November 2009 (EST)

  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)


Tagged as PD, but the photo was copied from copyrighted (All rights reserved.) site.[26]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 18:39, 11 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 19:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Category talk:Jordan Station[edit]

There are other channels to greet --Rein N. 01:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

See also Category:States and provinces. The random string of letters trailing the text is a sure sign of spambots (the theory I've heard is that it's an initial search for unmaintained wiki pages where they can then set up link farms unnoticed), making them valid targets for speedy deletion. - D. Guillaime 02:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy deleted both --Rein N. 03:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Image:Welcome to Rottingdean.JPG[edit]

No freedom of panorama for signs in England. LtPowers 10:21, 28 December 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. Don't know about the freedom of panorama, but I would support a image policy change saying that entry signs to towns are rarely useful. --Inas 01:41, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Image:Teslic old postcard.jpg[edit]

Unless we can show that the author died before 1940, we must presume this work to be copyrighted. (Copyright term in Bosnia is 70 years after the death of the author.) LtPowers 11:17, 31 December 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. Can't see the relevant to the traveller, so investigation seems to have little return. --Inas 01:39, 7 April 2010 (EDT)