Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Nauru.svg
Norwegian Wikipedia page no:Fil:Coat of arms of Nauru.svg, where this image is taken from, says: "Sletta fra Commons uten noen god grunn. Laster opp her til det kommer en versjon på Commons igjen." If I don't fail understanding Norwegian sufficiently, this means that the same image was deleted from Commons [for being from VectorImages.com, see the logs] before it was uploaded there. So it's not true that Jon Harald Søby is the author, the actual source is believed to be VectorImages.com or missing and it remains unclear how to back up the given license information. 193.40.10.181 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Zscout, it's nice to know that even after talking with me on my page, you feel the need to hide yourself in this matter. As I clearly stated on my page, there's no proof this is from VI, it's different, and even if it was, we could get the coat of arms redone, as you have chosen to do with the arms of Jordan, rather than delete the file all together. I'm really tired of us deleting coats of arms that we need because of technicalities, when we can simply have them redone, and then RevDel the old versions. We did this with Texas' state seal, we're in the process of doing it with the Jordanian coat of arms, and we could easily do it with this coat of arms. This is rediculous. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not Zscout and I decided to bring this to wider audience rather than replying at your talk page. (Though I don't really get it why it wasn't speedy deleted.) It doesn't really matter if the source is VI or the actual source is missing, does it? If you say that relevant copyright act allows it, then redoing is a solution. But at this state the author and license information are wrong and there's no proof of this image being under a free license. 193.40.10.181 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, according to him you are. I don't care whether you are or not, there is no proof the Arms is copyrighted. Second, Nauru has adopted English copyright law is it's own law, which means that an independent version from what the State uses (which this is), is free. Third, there's no proof that this is from Vector Images. Fourth, there is absolutely no reason why we can not have it redone by a Wikimedia user, and RevDel the previous version if it truly was a problem. The current procedure of deleting files because of minor reasons, such as "it's from VI so we can't have it" is not IMO a valid reason for deletion, and is lazy, because if we have the ability to redo the file and RevDel previous versions, we should do that, rather then deprive Wikimedia of the coat of arms which we need. We currently are missing 12 national emblems, and it's sad that we're not prioritizing getting them done, when we have many uses capable of doing it for us. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The burden of proof lies on those in favour of keeping the image not vice versa. It must be clear that the license policy applys.
- Besides, I'd love having as complete collection of national emblems as possible too and to draw our artists' attention to it this fake image (that we don't have really) should be pushed away. 90.190.114.172 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is the blazon for this CoA anyway? If it's known then the CoA can be recreated, but the result will most likely be a very close likeness of this file. The accusation is that the file has come from Vector-Images.com, where is the proof? Yes, the burden of proof is on the users who want to keep the file, but there is also the burden of proof of any accusations. You have to back your accusation up with evidence. So far there is none, as such
Keep. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Er, I could just replace the source and license information with no source and no license tags, becouse current is wrong. Does that make more sense? As for this file being from VI, see the sentence above in Norwegian and log. I don't know how Fry checked that it isn't from VI, maybe VI has updated their image. Even if it isn't from VI, the license status is still unclear. You are not saying that it's OK to take any image from the Internet and relase it under free license in case it's easy to redo something similar, are you? 90.190.114.172 21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that the meta information is wrong, other than a note (also not supported by any evidence) on the Norwegian wiki? If you make a specific accusation then regardless of us having to prove otherwise the onus is on you to back up that accusation with evidence. So far you haven't. In any case, what happens on no.wp is irrelevant to what happens on Commons. Now, you've made your accusation. Back it up with evidence then people will be in a position to argue the point. So what evidence do you have that the designer/author of this CoA isn't as given? And what makes you believe that the copyright statement is incorrect, and what evidence to you have that the source isn't as stated? Until you can come up with those then your argument and accusation is baseless. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please be reasonable. Jon Harald Søby, claimed to be the author, has said on nowiki that one took the image from Commons and as one uploaded it on Norwegian Wikipedia with title in English it's more than likely that one didn't change the image title so the log information liked above applys. Other than that, I repeat, the burden of proof lies on those in favour of keeping the image. 90.190.114.172 22:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, what? I am not the IP hold and I never claimed any sort of IP being connected at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Anyways, from looking at http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=4474 I would say there is about an 80% match to what VI has and what we have. The main differences I noticed is the detail on the plants at the bottom right of the shield and the text on the scroll (different font and placement). As for a blazon, nothing yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, what? I am not the IP hold and I never claimed any sort of IP being connected at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please be reasonable. Jon Harald Søby, claimed to be the author, has said on nowiki that one took the image from Commons and as one uploaded it on Norwegian Wikipedia with title in English it's more than likely that one didn't change the image title so the log information liked above applys. Other than that, I repeat, the burden of proof lies on those in favour of keeping the image. 90.190.114.172 22:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that the meta information is wrong, other than a note (also not supported by any evidence) on the Norwegian wiki? If you make a specific accusation then regardless of us having to prove otherwise the onus is on you to back up that accusation with evidence. So far you haven't. In any case, what happens on no.wp is irrelevant to what happens on Commons. Now, you've made your accusation. Back it up with evidence then people will be in a position to argue the point. So what evidence do you have that the designer/author of this CoA isn't as given? And what makes you believe that the copyright statement is incorrect, and what evidence to you have that the source isn't as stated? Until you can come up with those then your argument and accusation is baseless. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Er, I could just replace the source and license information with no source and no license tags, becouse current is wrong. Does that make more sense? As for this file being from VI, see the sentence above in Norwegian and log. I don't know how Fry checked that it isn't from VI, maybe VI has updated their image. Even if it isn't from VI, the license status is still unclear. You are not saying that it's OK to take any image from the Internet and relase it under free license in case it's easy to redo something similar, are you? 90.190.114.172 21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is the blazon for this CoA anyway? If it's known then the CoA can be recreated, but the result will most likely be a very close likeness of this file. The accusation is that the file has come from Vector-Images.com, where is the proof? Yes, the burden of proof is on the users who want to keep the file, but there is also the burden of proof of any accusations. You have to back your accusation up with evidence. So far there is none, as such
- Well, according to him you are. I don't care whether you are or not, there is no proof the Arms is copyrighted. Second, Nauru has adopted English copyright law is it's own law, which means that an independent version from what the State uses (which this is), is free. Third, there's no proof that this is from Vector Images. Fourth, there is absolutely no reason why we can not have it redone by a Wikimedia user, and RevDel the previous version if it truly was a problem. The current procedure of deleting files because of minor reasons, such as "it's from VI so we can't have it" is not IMO a valid reason for deletion, and is lazy, because if we have the ability to redo the file and RevDel previous versions, we should do that, rather then deprive Wikimedia of the coat of arms which we need. We currently are missing 12 national emblems, and it's sad that we're not prioritizing getting them done, when we have many uses capable of doing it for us. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not Zscout and I decided to bring this to wider audience rather than replying at your talk page. (Though I don't really get it why it wasn't speedy deleted.) It doesn't really matter if the source is VI or the actual source is missing, does it? If you say that relevant copyright act allows it, then redoing is a solution. But at this state the author and license information are wrong and there's no proof of this image being under a free license. 193.40.10.181 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Zscout, it's nice to know that even after talking with me on my page, you feel the need to hide yourself in this matter. As I clearly stated on my page, there's no proof this is from VI, it's different, and even if it was, we could get the coat of arms redone, as you have chosen to do with the arms of Jordan, rather than delete the file all together. I'm really tired of us deleting coats of arms that we need because of technicalities, when we can simply have them redone, and then RevDel the old versions. We did this with Texas' state seal, we're in the process of doing it with the Jordanian coat of arms, and we could easily do it with this coat of arms. This is rediculous. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. This file was originally uploaded under the same filename in 2007, and later deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request). The previous upload is identical to the current upload, and so is a speedy deletion candidate. Restoration of deleted files must proceed through Commons:Undeletion requests.
The original image description read, "Note that this is not the vector image from Vector-Images.com, but a recreation of their GIF preview image. Inasfar as the general terms of use do not apply to GIF previews of coats of arms, with the exeption of referencing to the source in image description, conditions of use have been met." This explains any small differences between the images. The terms of use argument was not accepted in the previous DR, and no one has explained in further detail here why it should be accepted.
To keep this image it would have to be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that it does not fall under the purview of the DR it was originally deleted under. nowiki is admonished against re-uploading files locally without adequate evidence that they are free. Finally, there has been more than ample time for someone to recreate this work from the heraldic description, but no one has done so. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
