Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Ghaznavid Empire.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
also:

Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Seljuq Empire.svg: derivative work from [1], alleged to be historical but probably isn't, apparently a fantasy reconstruction ultimately going back to some (unknown) 20th-century author. Both unencyclopedic and likely a copyright problem. Fut.Perf. 09:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep -strongly- They are historical flags and haven't copyright problem. A lot of old Turkish history books used these flags and they aren't reconstruction work. --.dsm. 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these are historical flags, then why is it that nobody, ever, in years, while these images have been re-uploaded and re-discussed and re-deleted multiple times, has come up with a decent reference for them? Note: the reference must show not just some verbal description that such-and-such a state used some kind of flag somehow showing this or that motive. It must show the actual design in this precise form and colour in an historical medieval attestation; or alternatively it must show it as a modern reconstruction that is old enough (e.g. published pre-1923) to be PD-old. Fut.Perf. 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is also File:Buyuk selcuklu devleti.gif, which is a re-creation of the file that was deleted in the previous deletion request referenced above and belongs to the same series. I tagged it for speedy deletion as recreation of validly deleted material, but Dsmurat removed the deletion tag. Fut.Perf. 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you two idiots need to relax .look at your own nations fake flags first before talking about turkish flags.

 Delete - It appears then that all the TRT invented flags are still copyrighted. If any of them are to be kept (eg. for being trivial), then the source and their fictional nature must be clearly indicated. --Latebird (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - I searched again but I didnt find them in "old" Turkish books and materials printed before 1969. Takabeg (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know the truth, but you deny it. The flags are real. There are many academic sources in Turkish but i didn't find English article about it. I know you can understand some Turkish but most of users can't understand it. --.dsm. 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bring them on. I'm sure Takabeg can read then, and my own Turkish will be sufficient to figure out most of it too. Fut.Perf. 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murat, I understand Turkish language :) We discussed this issue with User:Lord Leatherface in Turkish Wikipedia. Yes, I know the truth. Most of them (except Ottoman's) were invented by TRT in 1969. If you want, you can show us academic articles whitten in Turkish language. I (We)'ll enjoy to read them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't refer Flag of Göktürks. I think you might confuse "Kurt başlı bayrakları" with Flag of Göktürks. That is not flag itself but flagpole = Kurt başlı tuğ (Chinese: 狼头纛 / 狼頭纛, pinyin: láng tóu dào). Atatürk knew Kurt başlı tuğ and used wolf (Bozkurt) as national symbol. In short, they are not same. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murat, a verbal description stating that Turkic tribes used some sort of wolf head symbolism is not enough. We need the source for this precise design: this precise shape of the wolf head, this precise orientation, this precise shape of the flag, these precise colours. If a 20th-century designer "reconstructed" a Göktürk flag merely on the basis of there was something about a wolf head, then his graphic implementation was still original enough to create his own copyright. The only way you can demonstrate this is not copyrighted is if you can show a visual representation of this precise design in a source from before 1923. Fut.Perf. 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, all ahistorical (out of project scope) and copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]