Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 3



File:Bitoy.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

no assertion that the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder. the image is a scaled down version with missing meta data probably copied from some website. Bluemask (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Kadyrov Army.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

speedied as F7. As Kadyrov is still alive, it is not fair use, as a free image could very well be created. Russavia Dialogue 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, non-free images are not in scope here. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:CWBryan.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

unclear if this is in the public domain; if all three of these questions can be answered affirmatively, it is not: Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this taken in 1923 or later?
 * Does the photo have a copyright claim? It seems to me plausible.
 * Was the copyright renewed?
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:CFAdamsIII.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

no evidence of public domain presented; probably not pre-1923 Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Buenaventura Durruti.jpeg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  09:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

upload summary even says "fair use" Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

keep. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bulletin 1973-01-01 2 page005 img001 large.gif
are UN images public domain? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per PD-UN. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Левитан.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

no longer public domain under Russian law. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Bryukhonenko2.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

unclear if public domain under modern Russian law; photographer not given. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Building-apartment.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

no longer PD under Russian law unless pre-1917 Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pre-1954" tag is incorrect. These are early sixties. Delete as unused non-free. NVO (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Bulul1.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

no longer public domain under Russian law Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Bystritskaya elina.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

quite clearly appears to have been published/created after 1941 Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Centrosoyus.jpg
according to transcluded page, picture is from the 1950s Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to replace older tags with non-free use rationale. Contemporary photographs of the building were deleted on Commons as vio of COM:FOP, so a 1950s image is as "good" as one made in 2008. If you believe that a modern image may be any better, give me a note, I have tons :)). NVO (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Chabukiani. Othello.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

no longer public domain in Russia Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:CharkowVonReichenau.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

Place of first publication unclear; if it was Russia, it would be public domain (Reichenau fought on the wrong side of the Great Patriotic War for PD-Russia-2008); if it was Germany, this is not public domain, unless Nazi documents are public domain (are they?) Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is PD-Ukraine. I belive Nazi documents in the Soviet Union are treated as spoils of war, the Nazi copyright holder holds no rights to it. As the document is held in Kharkov, Ukraine, PD-Ukraine would apply here. --Russavia Dialogue 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Chekalin.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

unclear if painter died after 1942 AND didn't serve in the war, though it is doubtful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Chekists village.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

Result: Deleted. delldot  &nabla;.  01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Fair use does not equal public domain. Fair use replaceable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair use is not replaceable as any modern photograph is still a violation of "freedom of panorama". Although I don't have exact bios on each architects, at least one, Aleksey Tumbasov, was active in 1950s -> 70 years p.m.a. rule. I suggest deletion, as the image is redundant in Constructivist architecture and it is not constructivism at all, to be fair, unless the term is substituted for any modern architecture of that period. NVO (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Cherkasov.jpg
Fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep this image. { Nikolai Cherkasov as Ivan the Terrible in the film by Sergei Eisenstein, 1944 and 1958. )  Public domain in the Former Soviet Union.  This is an excellent example of the art-topic entry. Use of this picture is for educational instruction - not misappropriation or misdirection.

delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.82.122 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Faina1942.jpg
Fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chernyahovsky ID.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

Result: kept. delldot  &nabla;.  01:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ukrainian image - tagged as PD-Ukraine --Tavrian 03:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Chukovsk.jpg
probably fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Communism.jpg
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Comparison ThePriestAndHisServantBalda TheFishermanAndTheFish.jpg
probably fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Czech hedgehog.jpg
probably fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:DaniilShafran.jpg
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Davit bek.jpg
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Destroyed Khreschatyk 1943.jpg
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As this is Ukrainian, it can be tagged with PD-Ukraine. --Russavia Dialogue 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Current image tag confirms PD in the Ukraine and effect on PD U.S. I would be interested in knowing why this image was tagged for deletion in the first place as the current PD rationale is quite clear. FYI, Irpen has not been active of late and I would not expect a response from them here. PetersV    TALK 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Tagged as PD-Ukraine --Tavrian 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Devochka.jpg
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Dmitrov.jpg
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Don Quixote -Natalia Dudinskaya as Kitri & Maria Trushina as the Dryad Queen -1945.JPG
fails PD-Russia-2008 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Title transport.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

deleted. Image on commons with same name created to fix any possible license issues. It isn't clear to me if these licenses aren't compatible, or if there couldn't have been a way to appropriately attribute each image. Err on the side of caution, given that a similar image without these possible problems was created.-Andrew c [talk] 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Derivative work of four images which are, respectively, GFDL/CC-By-2.5, CC-By-SA-2.5, PD, and GFDL. Not compatible licenses. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unfortunately. Just to elaborate: While all the images are free licensed, the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses are not compatable because the GFDL require that derivatives be released under the exact same license as the original (Share Alike), the CC-BY-SA-2.5 share alike clause does allow for derivatives to be released under a license that's merey simmilar, but unfortunately GFDL can't be said to be sufficiently simmilar since it imposes some additional conditions other than mere attribution on the work (include copy of the licnse text etc). On a sidenote are there any "license compatability" charts anywhere? I can totaly see how this can be a convoluted topic and I suspect this is not the only image we have that mix and match content from incompatable free licenses... --Sherool (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Did some searches and came accross some exciding "new" developements going on: According to this: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/11544 and this: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/enormously_important_news_from.html the new GFDL 1.3 license and CC-BY-SA-3.0 are basicaly compatable now. Not sure about the gritty details but since "our" GFDL images are licensed under "Version 1.2 or any later version" (emphasis mine) I assume the new 1.3 version of the license can be applied (scertainly seems to be the intention). So since GFDL 1.3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0 are compatable and presumably CC-BY-SA 2.5 and 3.0 are also compatable it seems to me this new image could in fact be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and actualy be in full compliance with the licenses. Not 100% sure I got all that right since the "compatability" clause is a time limited exception and has some conditions attached, will have to do some further research, but have recalled by initial delete opinion for now at least. (assuming the uploader agree to license this derivative under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 that is) --Sherool (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like it's more of a one shot relicensing deal than actual compatability. Per section 11 of the FDL 1.3 license The Wikimedia foundation (as the operator of the site) will have the option to relicense all "GFDL 1.2 or later" works on the site (notably all text) created by it's users (or GFDL licensed content imported from elsewhere before November 1, 2008) as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but only untill August 1, 2009 after wich section 11 no longer apply. Doesn't look like individual users can just take GFDL 1.2 or later licensed content and re-release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 on their own (unless they hold the copyright naturaly) though, so yeah the licenses are not compatable. The Foundation has the option to "magicaly" transform most of the GFDL content currently hosted on it's servers to CC-BY-SA-3.0 but untill they do (Looks like there will be a vote and stuff first) this collage is still made up of images with incompatable licenses. --Sherool (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, hang on a tic. Is File:ICE 3 Fahlenbach.jpg actualy used in the image? It's listed as a source but looks like it's not actualy used in the derivative. Without that CC-By-SA only image the three others can be combined without issues (PD goes with anything, and the two others are GFDL only and GFDL or CC-BY-SA meaning you could release it under GFDL)... --Sherool (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the most absurd, anal, copyright worrymongering I have ever seen. It's four free images. To say that they can't be combined is absurd. That being said, I have a common sense Keep solution: Because we are copyright-worrymonger-central, just consider the file to be four individual works in one image. License the four individual works appropriately and move on. If I take one half of a sheet of a paper and draw something on my half, and a friend takes the other half of the paper and draws something on his half, we each still retain our individual copyrights despite the fact that our drawings are on one sheet of paper. There is nothing integrative about the pictures that were taken. All the vehicles in the image haven't crashed together into a flaming morass of destruction, although I feel as though this discussion might. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be absurd and counter intuitive, but it's never the less the unfortunate reality of how those licenses work, and we can't choose to just ignore the terms if a license whenever they are inconvenient. The images are only free as long as you comply with the terms of the license they are released under and in this case you can't combine GFDL and CC-BY-SA licensed content without violating one license or the other. If you wanted to release a copy of that hypotetical sheet of paper you and your friend both drew on you would both have to agree on a single license for the whole thing since you both have the copyright to your half of it. If you can't agree on what license to use you can not release the sheet as a whole but would have to release each half of it seperately (this is why we require everyone to release all their text contributions under the same license, we can't have different paragraphs of the same article licensed differently even though each user own the copyright to the bits he have added). Same principle here, an image comprised of parts of several other images are considered to be a single derivative of all of them (it makes no sense to say that different parts of the image have different licenses and use it as a single item at the same time) and have to comply with whatever terms the originals where released under, unfortunatley in this case some of the conditions are mutualy exclusive. Only real solution is to simply track down a set of images that don't have conflicting licenses and make a new banner from those. --Sherool (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that they can be labeled as four separate images in one image file. If you tape together four pictures in a simple manner such as this you haven't made a derivative work of those four pictures, you've just taped together four pictures. Sure, the four images each have each been individually altered and have become derivative works of their respective sources (all perfectly allowable), but the image file can be licensed individually as its parts. Your example of the text contributions falls flat. The real reason is that not that it would be impossible to release text contributions under multiple licenses, but instead because it would be supremely inconvenient to do so. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you can technicaly say that seperate portions of the same image have different licenses, but as you say it's supremely inconvenient to do so as the image basicaly become impossible to modify further and re-distribute in a way that comply with the license terms of the source images. So I rely don't think we want to go down that path. Also in this case the images are clearly edited and arranged with the intent of creating a single unified work to be used as a "logo" for transport related articles. Arguing that this image is simply a collection of entierly seperate works rater than a single derived work is stretching it rater too much IMO. --Sherool (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Supremely inconvenient for text, just a mild annoyance for images. It is not impossible to redistribute the source images individually. We shouldn't really be concerned that it is difficult to comply with the license terms in a free manner, merely that it is possible. GFDL is a pain-in-the-ass to comply with in the letter-of-the-law. I don't think saying that the images are individual works still is stretching it at all either. If I said, "here is a car, boat and airplane", that statement is far too simple for copyright. The same principle applies here. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Since everyone seems to be too busy arguing that they don't like the fact that CC-By-SA-XX and GFDL are incompatable to actualy make a new version of the image I went and did so myself. Using one public domain image and two images that are dual licensed as either GFDL or CC-BY-SA-2.5. Can be found at Commons:File:Title transport.jpg (same name so if this is deleted it will automaticaly come though in the articles). If anyone have any estetic issues with it feel free to replace it with something else, just mind the licenses (tip: Use the "Derivative from Commons" upload wizard they have, it will actualy tell you if any of your source images have a incompatable license. Pretty neat.). --Sherool (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Krikalev rsa.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Previously discussed at. Energia is a company, and the image is not in the PD, it is not PD-RU-exempt, as per all the bullsh*t we had to go thru to even get Kremlin images. Russavia Dialogue 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.