Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2014/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive April 2014
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cemetery in Trier[edit]

Misnamed category (singular rather than plural); author requested at [1] --Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Discussion result: Requested speedydeletion.    FDMS  4    18:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Zeevaartschool, De Ruyterschool[edit]

I created the categor in error. It is a duplicate of Category:Zeevaartschool, Vlissingen. PLease remove it. Thanks --Bardenoki (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted as per nom., empty duplicate of Category:Zeevaartschool, Vlissingen. --rimshottalk 19:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:St Leonard's Church, Littleworth[edit]

I created this category in error, having got the dedication of the church wrong. I have now moved all files to the correctly-named category. This file should now be deleted. Motacilla (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Touristic trains of Chambéry[edit]

Je souhaiterais faire supprimer cette catégorie. Je me suis trompé de nom et j'ai donc créé la catégorie "Touristic train of Chambéry" pour remplacer celle-ci. Lev. Anthony (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Touristic train of Chambéry. --rimshottalk 19:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rotterdam School of Management[edit]

Empty. Request removal. Timelezz (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, empty, probably after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ana 20122012. --rimshottalk 19:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dreiländermuseum[edit]

Die Kategorie Museum am Burghof ist veraltet. Das Museum heißt jetzt Dreiländermuseum Dreiländermuseum (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Weiterleitung erstellen von Category:Museum am Burghof auf Category:Dreiländermuseum. Keinesfalls löschen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Selbst erledigt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Museum am Burghof was redirected. --rimshottalk 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Kurhaus Göggingen[edit]

{{delete}} Jkü (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now moved to Category:Parktheater Göggingen‎. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Parktheater Göggingen. --rimshottalk 19:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Typographers from the USA[edit]

Didn't noticed the category Typographers from the United States. --Stiegenaufgang (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Redirected to Category:Typographers_from_the_United_States to prevent other from making the same mistake. --rimshottalk 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Border crossing of Georgia[edit]

Suggest deletion of this category as replaced with more accurate Category:Border crossings of Georgia slleong (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Geagea (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Border crossings of Georgia. --rimshottalk 18:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Satellite images of the Great Lakes[edit]

Created in error. Replaced by Category:Satellite pictures of the Great Lakes. Please see Commons:Help desk thread - here. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Satellite pictures of the Great Lakes, for consistency. --rimshottalk 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bishopbourne, Tasmania[edit]

incorrect naming - correct name is Bishopsbourne. Peripitus (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Bishopsbourne, Tasmania, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bridges of the United Kingdom by type[edit]

I created this category in error; please consider it for deletion. Motacilla (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tjen Kirke[edit]

Mis-spelling - replaced by Category:Tejn Kirke Beethoven9 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an incorrect spelling, probably done by me. So that replacement is required. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Tejn Kirke as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Baby Great Lakes[edit]

Empty, uncategorized category. Candidate for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Redirected to Category:Oldfield Baby Great Lakes, as per en:Oldfield Baby Great Lakes, this is a valid name too. --rimshottalk 21:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thai-NP-Temple[edit]

Category is meaningless and was filled with random media (since recategorised into correct categories). The creator of this category can not be reached for comment. Takeaway (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. Also, the name of the category is unclear, and so it is not useful for other purposes. Actually, I think the empty category can be nominated for speedy deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, category of unclear scope. --rimshottalk 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thai-NP-Mushrooms[edit]

Meaningless category. Media have since been categorised in Category:Fungi of Thailand Takeaway (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, empty category of unclear scope. --rimshottalk 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thai-NP-Garden[edit]

Meaningless category name. All its media have been categorised into the correct categories. Takeaway (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, empty category of unclear scope. --rimshottalk 21:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thai-NP-V.Foods[edit]

Meaningless category. Its media have been recategorised into relevant categories. Takeaway (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, empty category of unclear scope. --rimshottalk 21:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Teachers from the Philippines[edit]

should be deleted. we have Category:Educators from the Philippines ProfessorX (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Redirected to Category:Educators from the Philippines. --rimshottalk 22:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Beppe Costa[edit]

There are two Beppe Costa's: I've devided them into X (Italy) and X (Netherlands). Grashoofd (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest keeping this category as a disambiguation with links to the new categories. --rimshottalk 21:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Beppe Costa (Italy) and renamed appropriately into Beppe Costa (writer); same for Beppe Costa (Netherlands) renamed Beppe Costa (actor); Kept category Beppe Costa as disambiguation category. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Johan Boskamp[edit]

split cat into (actor) and (football player) - there are two Grashoofd (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Disambiguated into Category:Johan Boskamp (football player) and Category:Johan Boskamp (actor). --rimshottalk 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Birds in Parque das Aves (Foz do Iguaçu)[edit]

already exists without ()'s Grashoofd (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, author request, duplicate of Category:Birds in Parque das Aves. --rimshottalk 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animals in Parque das Aves (Foz do Iguaçu)[edit]

already exists without ()'s Grashoofd (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, author request, duplicate of Category:Animals in Parque das Aves. --rimshottalk 20:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Parque das Aves (Foz do Iguaçu)[edit]

already exists without ()'s Grashoofd (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Deleted, author request, duplicate of Category:Parque das Aves. --rimshottalk 20:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Old cars[edit]

Empty category Grashoofd (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Empty category, and the word "automobile" is used for car-related categories. tsca (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Symbols of Zundert[edit]

The question is about 2 SVG flag files (Zundert Netherlands.svg & Zundert vlag.svg): which one of them is "official"? 149.156.172.74 13:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On their official web page, it looks more like File:Zundert vlag.svg, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were no "official" rendering of the flag. In that case both would be correct.
I'll close this discussion now, as it is not about the category. If you have further questions, you might have more luck at the Village Pump. --rimshottalk 10:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing done, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 10:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Coats of arms in heraldry[edit]

There is already the Category:Inescutcheons in heraldry whichs contains coats of arms that show a heraldic shield (coa) within. As I understand the condition for a category "... in heraldry", the image has to show the "..." item depicted in a coat of arms anyhow. If I follow the name of the category name here each and every CoA belongs to this category, which can't be true. Since the cat is biting its tail! --Maxxl2 - talk 14:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is already true what you want to say. We must clean up, respectively rename this category - the german translation "Wappen in Wappen" applies it correctly.--Juergenk59 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
+1: Merge to Inescutcheons in heraldry and delete it, as example for the misinterpreting what Maxxl says File:Coa Genealogy Research Center of St. Louis.svg -- Perhelion (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to change if mayority decide it, I accept aguments exposed. Thanks--Heralder (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It is empty now. --Maxxl2 - talk 18:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Inescutcheons in heraldry, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Natalia Poklonskaya[edit]

Some of the fan images in this category are derivative of the news conference that Poklonskaya became notable/an internet meme for. The conference video is copyrighted, so for images that clearly derive the setting (basically, any of these where she is sitting at a table with microphones in front of her) would be a derivative, copyrighted work. Others of her that are standing or less obvious being from that video should be okay. (This is the video in question [2]) Masem (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I would have to disagree with your statement that these would qualify as derivative works. These images are not based on the exact imagery from the video, but are the artist's own interpretations of the conference itself. The artworks are not traced from the video image or anything else which would suggest derivative work, and each has a unique and different artistic style specific to the artist's own creativity; hence, there is ample threshold of originality so that the copyright of the image belongs to the author of the artwork.

    As an example: Imagine if Barack Obama held a press conference at the Oval Office, and an Associated Press photographer took a picture and published it. An artist can draw Barack Obama at a podium at the Oval Office without the artwork having anything to do with the AP photographer's photograph. You cannot state that an artwork is a derivative work of a commercial image simply because it appears similar to it. If multiple people take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and one of them happened to do so on behalf of a commercial entity, does that mean that everyone's Eiffel Tower photographs are derivative works of the commercial entity? No, of course not. The creator of the video is the copyright holder of the video, and not the copyright holder of the press conference. Nobody can "own" the press conference, and Аргументы Недели-Крым (Argumenty Nedeli-Krym) cannot be the exclusive owner of all visual images of the press conference, simply because they were one of many who were present at the conference and took audiovisual imagery (ITAR-TASS was present as well, in addition to other agencies). -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 05:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Some of them are closer to borderline than others. Either way, the category has to be renamed. What we have in the category and what the category's current name implies should be in there are totally different. I propose Category:Fan art of Natalia Poklonskaya. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That category title sounds reasonable, no opposition here. ("Category:Artwork of Natalia Poklonskaya" would probably sound more straight to the point though.) -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 06:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer a category named something like "Artwork/Fan art depicting..." because "Artwork of..." makes it sound like it's her artwork. Dainomite (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the standard naming scheme would be "Natalia Poklonskaya in art". But as long as there isn't anything to fill the parent category, there is no point in creating such a subcategory. darkweasel94 22:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • There will be other things to fill the parent category in future. There are currently attempts to obtain a free license photographic image from the press representative of the Crimean Prosecutor's Office. By using subcategories, we can separate drawn images from real-life photographs. --benlisquareTalkContribs 13:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
          • That is good; when that happens, I can absolutely see the usefulness of moving the drawings to "Natalia Poklonskaya in art". I'm just not a big fan of categories that contain only one subcategory and no images of their own; this does nothing other than make navigation harder. Nor am I a big fan of having "Natalia Poklonskaya in art", but not "Natalia Poklonskaya" – I mean, how does it look if we have "Natalia Poklonskaya in art" directly under Category:Prosecutors in Russia? Anyone navigating that tree will think nothing but "huh?", IMHO. That's why I think that as long as there aren't actually any photos of Poklonskaya, the current situation is the best way to organize what we have. darkweasel94 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that these images violate anyone's copyrights. I'm not a lawyer, but the en:Derivative_work says, "The transformation, modification or adaption of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright." Since these adaptions portray a animesque fantasy invented by the artists rather than reality itself, I would have to say that these adaptions "bear [their] author[s'] personality" and are thus original. These images aren't photographs modified with Photoshop, and they aren't remixes of video footage; instead, they are drawings created by passionate artists. Heart and soul went into making these. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    There are previous cases that I am going off of. At one point, Susan Boyle (the housewife that rose to popularity on UK's Idol show) was recluse and no free photos of her were obtained. People attempted to create fan art of her appearance on the show as free replacements which was deemed inappropriate and removed as a clear derivative for the show's production, even though it just shows her face, dress, and the microphone it held. A second case is that we lack presently a free image of Kim Jong-il. Someone tried to use well-done graffiti of Jong-il that was painted on a wall of a country with favorable use of freedom of panorama which otherwise would have been free, but that was deleted because the image they used for Jong-il was a clear derivative of a press photo. The key to remember here is that the work being derived from is a network's camerashot of the conference, so things like angle and lighting are the creative elements here. (Yes, it is silly that these could have copyright, but they do, and we have to abide by that) --Masem (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    Nobody can "own" the press conference, and Аргументы Недели-Крым (Argumenty Nedeli-Krym) cannot be the exclusive owner of all visual images of the press conference, simply because they were one of many who were present at the conference and took audiovisual imagery (ITAR-TASS was present as well, in addition to other agencies). Notice the camera flashes during the video? There were at least 3 or 4 Russian media outlets there with still photography cameras. You cannot say that all images with a bunch of microphones placed here and there in front of her are copyrighted by this agency. These images feature objects which appear in different angles, whereas the copyrighted video is filmed only from one angle, which means that these artworks feature artstyles that are specific to the artist's own, and they are made based on their own imagination and creativity. I firmly believe that this is becoming silly copyright paranoia.

    You cannot copyright "the arrangement of a few microphones, a hairstyle, and a uniform". You can copyright still images and moving images, however none of these artworks are specifically and implicitly based on an exact and particular copyrighted work so that they become derivative works. These artworks did not originate from any particular copyrighted image, but instead originated from the idea of the conference which took place, which happened to be filmed and photographed by multiple people working for multiple agencies at that particular time. They share a similar idea, but not identical one, and originality did occur in the formation of these works.

    As an example of what would be undeniably and irrefutably considered a derivative work, this image would be considered a derivative work (pencil sketch based on video footage). This image (warning, NSFW) would be as well (painted artwork based on photographic and video footage), as is this image (a derivative of this meme), and this image (derivative artstyle of the Love Live! television anime series).

    I believe that this sort of paranoia hurts free content as a whole. If people are going to have their artworks unfairly labelled as "derivative works", then why would there be any further incentive for people to release works under a Creative Commons license? These artists granted OTRS permission to use such a license based on their good faith and desire to share, only to be shut down as derivatives with unsubstantial evidence.

    You keep saying that "the few but essential creative elements of the footage, such as lighting and angle" are copyrightable by ANK's video (this is a direct quote from you). Why, then, do you keep ignoring the important point that all of these images have differing lighting and angling to the ANK imagery? ASLE owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, Evan Yang owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, and BonKiru owns the copyright to his angles and lighting. What is with this silly double standard that only ANK's angles and lighting matter, and not the angles and lighting of everybody else? Have you not realised the holes within your reasoning? You can't have your balalaika and play it too. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

    As I explained on en.wiki, the ANK video is the one that launched the meme, and that specific angle of her sitting behind the microphones' is clearly ANK's camera and thus the copyright we have to worry about. In the case of File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Evan Yang.jpg unless that artist was there, that image is clearly drawn off ANK's composition of the scene, and thus presents a derivative work problem. It might be completely in the clear, but case law is not strong here, and we know that derivative works are possible copyright infringement and as such, we should not consider that image free, its too far in the borderline for that. In case of File:Natalia Poklonskaya by leaf98k.jpg, this only using visual references but no composition or lighting from the ANK, so it is very difficult to claim derivative copyright on that and as long as the artist has give a free license, that's fine. (Personality rights, perhaps, but that's different) File:Natalia Poklonskaya by 薫.jpg is n iffy case because is clearly a different angle but with elements of the setup, but that's probably reasonably okay. I only think there's 2 or 3 images that are a problem here, not the entire category. --Masem (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It is quite clear and completely undisputable under Wikipedia policy that this is a clear wp:WP:BLP1E, and does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. I suggest therefore that deleting all of these images would be worthwhile. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wouldn't contest her notability as it is two-pronged, her position on the government, and the meme. But that's an issue to resolve at en.wiki. And even if the subject isn't notable at en.wiki, thre's no reason to delete freely given images that are otherwise not derivative work problems. --Masem (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • This isn't the English Wikipedia. Dainomite (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • enwiki has no jurisdiction over ruwiki, jawiki, zhwiki and all the other Wikipedias where the images are used. There is no consensus on the Chinese Wikipedia that matches your opinion, so even if enwiki did decide on WP:BLP1E (which it didn't), the decision would not hold here on Commons. Furthermore, Commons is not Wikipedia (i.e. an encyclopedia), it is a repository of free-license content intended for use on multiple Wikimedia projects. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 04:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is grotesque and ridicolous. Following this reasoning, every depiction of some notable figure in a press conference is a derivative work (since the press conference will have appeared in copyrighted videos) and thus copyrighted. Such a generic setting and situation can hardly be considered "derivative work". If you want to delete these images, find a better excuse.--Cyclopia (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I note, not all of these are "clear" derivatives; maybe 2-3 of them really are in the grey zone and the rest are sufficiently novel to not be an issue. The problem is with copyright is that while the conference setting may not seem unique and all, copyright still is applied, and it would be better not to consider these free. The issue that I point out is that there's only been one video of her in that position - compared to say 100s of Obama at the White House press stand - so the video's owner could clearly track down derivative works. Hence it is better to consider these non-free. We're not losing the bulk of the images, still, enough to show the phenomenon of her popularity. --Masem (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is clearly a legal issue. Since it seems there is no evident judgement, the issue must be decided by Commons lawyers, rather than by users who are not even provably paralegals. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I, too, find this ridiculous. I don't understand why the whole category is discussed. Maybe a couple of the pictures were made to look like the original press conference, but I don't think they can qualify as derivatives. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see how this can be similar to drawing a scene from a TV show as Masem suggested. The original video simply depicted an official event, an event that can't be subject to copyright. It wasn't a stage play, it was a press conference of a state official. There were no decorations or stage costumes that could be subject to copyright protection. The uniform is an official uniform, not a stage costume. The microphones are unoriginal, well below any possible threshold of originality, and they aren't part of a stage decoration or something like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 1. Wikimedia Commons is not hosting for any free-licensed file. According to COM:SCOPE file must be be realistically useful for an educational purpose - the many/most of files (or even all of them) must be deleted - they are not photos, they are en:courtroom sketchs, they are not created by famous/notable photo artist, graphic artist, or painter (notable for own article in wikipedia).
    2. If we will have kept these files nevertheless - they must be moved in separate sub-category "Artwork of (Artwork depicting) Natalia Poklonskaya". The main category Category:Natalia Poklonskaya should be used for real images of person (photography or other non-fan-art images). Alex Spade (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    COM:SCOPE says: "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"."
    The files certainly provide informative knowledge about what's discussed in the article.
    You seem to imply that we don't need so many files, but how can we decide which ones aren't needed? This is a depository for files to be used on all wikipedias, we can't decide for many editors in many different wikipedias which files they should choose. Some may prefer to use just one, some may prefer to use 10 files at once, some may like this, some that. Having as many files as possible gives them more opportunities to create a good article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    They're notable enough to have significant media coverage. In fact, a handful of these free-license images actually appear over the news, which is one of the multiple reasons why the original artists were contacted for OTRS. Furthermore, these images are used on various Wikipedia projects of different languages, and hence COM:SCOPE is fulfilled. As a parallel, Category:Polandball comics images are used in places such as Wikiversity, which would also fulfill COM:SCOPE. Who decides what is and isn't "educational"? Such an arbitrary word is purely subjective; some people consider the bible to be educational, whilst others disagree—these things are all based on personal values, and you cannot make a Commons procedural argument based on personal values. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 04:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep There is a legitimate question as to whether any of these files should be here. If we host these files though, the idea of a category to contain them seems entirely approriate, especially as it is being used as a link target by WP.

I would support splitting the category for "Photographs of ..." and "Fanart of ..." though (and I recognise that the definition between the two is likely to raise questions).
As to hosting the files within Commons' scope, then that's not the question at issue here. I would though support keeping them. The Poklonskaya fan phenomenon is WP:Notable in its own right by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A category discussion request isn't a way to get images deleted. 65% of the images in this category are now in mainspace use somewhere, so at least these are automatically ok as far as educational value is concerned. If there are copyright or other concerns, please file them at each image individually, not the category. darkweasel94 22:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this category justified because those promoting the images in it are using these images to illustrate in en:Natalia Poklonskaya - (an article which uses these cartoon portrayals of a Crimean official exclusively to portray her, including a gallery and a link to Category:Natalia Poklonskaya) - do not take the situation in the Republic of Crimea, or it's officials seriously? To take a frivolous example to make a point, you think it would be perfectly fine if there were a Commons category called [[Category:Barack Obama]] with subcategories [[Category:Presidents of the United States]] and [[Category:People of the United States]] and [[Category:1961 births]] etc. that was filled exclusively with kawaii type anime images showing how "cute" Barack Obama is, or how "hot"? Would such images be OK for a gallery of images in the BLP of a US official?
    That "65% of the images in this category" are used somewhere doesn't mean they are all used to illustrate en:Natalia Poklonskaya in other languages, and not for some other use, like illustrating cartoon forms, or kawaii illustrations or something else like anime? Parabolooidal (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There's already discussion (and imo, concensus) about moving the images to category that has a better suited name. The images aren't just used on the en wiki either, so that point is mute. Dainomite (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I do not think we should be describing the images as a group. The images seem to be in scope (educational, notable artists, notable subject, and in use on wikipedias) and if there are any issues with individual images being too close to photographs than we should discuss them individually. I would like to propose to close this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I agree with most here who argue that this category should be kept, however I also agree all fanart depictions should be into a subcategory inside this. The category should contain real images of Poklonskaya, but all anime images should remain here in Commons. --Zerabat (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Drawings depicting Natalia Poklonskaya. This would be a more accurate name. --Jakob (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Artworks" or "illustrations" are fine, but not "anime". Technically these are not "anime", which is by strict definition a moving picture. Anime (アニメ) is a shortening of アニメーション Animēshon, which means "animation". Any other definition is a misnomer, and therefore is less correct and desirable. --benlisquareTalkContribs 06:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Silly me. I've fixed the proposed category name. --Jakob (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues at play here. First, should all of these images be deleted as derivative works of the news conference. Second, is the category appropriately named. As to the first, there is a consensus against deleting all of these images, as well as one against deleting any of these images through CfD. If you wish to place any or all of these images for deletion, the proper forum is Commons:Deletion requests. As to the second issue, there is a consensus that this is not the best name for the category, but no single replacement has been agreed upon. In the absence of that, I just picked one. The category is being renamed Category:Artwork depicting Natalia Poklonskaya. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)