Commons talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Privacy is a right

Privacy is a right anywhere on the world. -- 23:50, 26 July 2008‎ User:Pérez

Perhaps you mean "in" the world. How can we be credible editors if even our grammar amiss. NotaryO (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Guideline

Try of a guideline. Somewhat based on the w:wikipedia:Deletion policy and w:Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. Comments are very welcome -- Chris 73 04:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please consider this; 1 April 2012 @22:37

Please consider this

Freedom, or even grace must come with responsibility and DEMOCRACY with political and social maturity otherwise we should be grateful and content having a "big brother" who stays a step behind always there to remind us when we are about to hurt ourselves. And this, he brings to us not with a stick but with a kiss.

I don't see the advantage of having guidelines for deletion. I do see it for speedy deletion, but for deletion, I see only disadvantages. We get one of three:

The guidelines are too narrow, and we get to keep pictures we would like to delete because they're not within the guidelines.
The guidelines are too broad, and disregarded because much that we want to keep is still within the guidelines.
The guidelines are too vague, and we just get one of the grounds in the guideline upon a picture we want to get rid of because it fits best.
The guidelines are completely ignored.

You just can't think of all reasons to delete something without getting so broad that the majority that is under the guidelines is not material we do not want to delete. - Andre Engels 20:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If an image or page falls under the deletion guidelines, they can be listed for deletion, but don;t have to. This is up to the users. On wikipedia, for example, vanity is an often used reason for deletion, which is equally broad and uncertain, and usually needs community consensus. Same would apply for the commons. If the users want it deleted, then it gets deleted. if not,not. -- Chris 73 21:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see the advantage. Suppose I want a page deleted, but it happens to fall under no reason in the list of guidelines. Can I put it forward for deletion? If yes, then the whole guideline is useless, if no then it means that we are restricting ourselves without (in my opinion) good reason. - Andre Engels 00:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fact that deleted images can never be restored is a very good reason for restricting ourselves. Anthony 06:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a reason to check extra carefully whether we want to delete something before doing so. It is not a reason to not delete things we want to delete. - Andre Engels 11:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Things you want deleted and things we want deleted are not necessarily equivalent, though. If we want to delete something, then we will add it to the list of guidelines. Anthony 05:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is "we" a pluralis majestatis or did you actually mean "I"? -- Chris 73 06:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's always 5. The guidelines start out narrow, but we add to them as we come up with items we agree should be deleted which aren't covered by the guidelines. Anthony 15:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Permission

I Discovered quite by chance the {{Permission}} template. I've modified it to exist at Category:Permission. These images are all subject to deletion. These need to be included in administrators cleanup as well. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Objection against speedy deletion procedure

I find the redundant reason insufficient reason for a speedy deletion. Personnally I do a lot of plants, and some photos illustrate rather subtle differences between different species. One has to have some elementary knowledge of plants and a detailed flora to judge if photos are really redundant.

In a quit different category, I can imagine that tastes differ very much which of several photos of an old building is best and which other can be deleted as redundant.

I would very much prefer to see a normal deletion procedure for "redundant" photos.

TeunSpaans 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It has already been solved. Redundant files are now splitted up into exact duplicates and suberseded. Superseded files have the normal deletion procedure now. Arnomane 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, for clarity's sake, it should be mentioned at Commons:Deletion guidelines#Speedy deletion TeunSpaans 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a revamp of this page as we speak, and just now that I've seen this, I changed the parts you linked, so thanks for pointing that out specifically. By the way, about five hours before your initial post, I posted at the Village Pump to ask for suggestions and review, so if you have any more comments, suggestions, or criticisms, please, share them, there, preferably. —UED77 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Preamble

I've added a bit of a preamble (this is for new admins, right) to help explain the purpose here. --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop)

I Have removed it. We simply can't wait for every local project giving their agreement. We have to delete files very fast in order to work up our back log. We do our very best in order to avoid problems (like commonsTicker, unlinking and so forth). Arnomane 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why that preamble should be there! New sysops need an overview of what is acceptable or not. Encouraging deletion of images without orphaning them first raises the spectre of whiny sister-projects all over again. You know - where sister projects find out about deletions only from CommonsTicker (or running across a dead link,) then run to COM:VP calling for The Commons to be disbanded.

Every Commons sysop should be encouraged and reminded to orphan images before any deletion. It is unreasonable to recommend anything else. --Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take the time and dive into the categories below Category:Unknown. Try to google for sources. This is as well a perfect non-admin job. After you have done ~50 images you will know why we can only recommend but not demand usage of checkusage and why it is not hostile towards all other projects if we ask them to help as well. Note that CommonsTicker now highlightens such and similar problems so local projects have it much more easier now to contribute their part. Arnomane 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

delete

I don't understand one thing, if these are duplicates and are up for deletion, why are they here? Can't someone just go and delete them? WayneRay 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

It seems, that no sysop wants to delete an duplicate image. Where are the sysops who want to work ? Augiasstallputzer 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted two of them which was the exact duplicates, but for the others you should use the regular deletion procedure. (Image:Caspar David Friedrich - Das Eismeer.jpg is the exact duplicate too, but it have the filename I like more than numbering). --Panther 08:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The non-numeric names are nicer, but there are still about 50 enumerated images. Thats to much for changing them all. The other listed images are wrong-colored and / or low-quality-scans. I checked that by using Google and the owner's websites. I don't think, that anyone needs wrong versions of the images. for deleting the others, two images are saved in two versions:

Augiasstallputzer 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Deletion_guidelines more carefully: ...exactly the same content -also exactly the same colors- ... tag it with {{duplicate}}... and ...If it is a work that is very similar (or identical) to another, it's a redundant file, which mandates a different procedure... and ...Redundant or low quality files get only deleted on a case by case basis after they got listed the usual way at Commons:Deletion requests.... I think you are right, but Dura lex sed lex. Please use the regular deletion procedure. --Panther 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How to explain deletion of Commons images at non-English Wiki sites?

I would like to seek any comments on how to explain deletion of Commons images at non-English Wiki sites as we do not yet have automated tools to delink deleted Commons images from Wiki sites. I manually delink deleted Commons images from English, Chinese, and French Wiki sites, but I ask this as I do not know how to explain at other language sites while I cannot speak languages other than English, Chinese, and limited basic French.--Jusjih 17:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You can use User:Pfctdayelise/Translations. / Fred Chess 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the answer, but it will still take much time as we have AT LEAST hundreds, possibly thousands, of problem images under Category: Unknown. This is why I wish that automated tools are available, or admins will never catch up. I have deleted so many "unknown" images yesterday, but there are still about 90 tagged in August 2006.--Jusjih 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need to unlink images anymore? There is now a CommonsTicker that assists local Wikipedia projects. / Fred Chess 16:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. The en.wp for instance, doesn't utilize CommonsTicker nor do many other projects. 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

At least it is available in the following Wikipedia projects:

Fred Chess 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Hopefully these will save admins here much time delinking problem images.--Jusjih 15:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

unclear

I just discovered that there is a Commons:Incomplete license category, where images get deleted after 7 days.

I dont object against the 7 day deadline, or applying this to iamges without a license. But I find that the template lacks info on how to protest aqgainst the deletion if the uploader finds its proposed deletion unreasonable: should this be done at the image's talk page, at the category, or on the page of the image itself?

However, I think there is a seond, more fundamental problem with this template in relation with PD-old images. There are many old images where the artist is simply unknown. The statement as is simply boils down to: we dont host any PD-old images of which the artist has got lost over the centuries.

Examples:

The latter two have book-sources, but do not mention the artist/author.

And then, or curse there are many old fresco from ancient Rome and Greece, where it is highly unlikely that any original artist will ever be known.

Now I am not saying that we should be uncritical of images uploaded here, on the contrary: we have allowed to many doubtful images here to lurk around for too long. But clear guidelines for anonymous pix with PD-old would be a good thing.

TeunSpaans 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For consideration: The German WP has a "today minus 100 years" guideline, so if the author is unknown the image must be 100 years or older to be accepted. --Matt314 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Where to answer: It's best to add your comments on the image page, because no one really reads the talk pages. -Samulili 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion comments

Could someone add a line about having more informative deletion comments. The deletion comment duplicate or superseded doesn't help a non-admin find the image that superseded the deleted one. Similarly just copyvio doesn't say anything specific about why the image was deleted. This is especially important since more and more admins rely on Commons ticker to inform lokal wikis about image deletions./Lokal _Profil 15:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not bring it up at the admins' noticeboard? / Fred Chess 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. /Lokal _Profil 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New deletion criteria

At present the deletion guidelines say nothing about photographs that are inherently libelous. This deletion request illustrates the problem. The photo caption and title describe it as a Ukrainian prostitute speaking with her pimp. The man is clearly visible. There is no evidence that he is indeed a pimp. The legal problems are obvious but the uploader argues he violates no rule in the Deletion guidelines. Do other agree the guidelines should be expanded to cover such cases? WJBscribe 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We have long have the rule that images of people may only be published with their consent, libelous or no (yes, there are some exceptions, such as "crowds", "public appearance", and "famous people in public"). This should probably be noted explicitely in the deletion guidelines. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would help if the guidelines were more comprehensive. There are some common sense categories of images that listing in the guidelines would save pointless debate about later. The other one that comes to mind is pictures of people engaging in sexual activity where it cannot be established the participants are 18 ar over. WJBscribe 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally hesitant about adding further criterias :-/ increasing b'cracy, and is probably not necessary. Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope say what we allow on Commons, not this page. Quoting Commons:Licensing#Checklist

Definitely not OK:

Photographs of normal people who have not given consent to being photographed

Fred Chess 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have to add "image is not legal" (for purposes other than copyright violation) as a deletion criterion? A correctly licensed self-made picture with a title and topic such as Image:Penis of 14 year old boy does not technically fall under any deletion criterion here, speedy or otherwise. However an admin speedily deleting that image would obviously be doing the right thing...--Nilfanion 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with you... but people start to arge "it's not mentioned in the guidelines, so it's not a valid reason for deletion". Perhaps we should add "common sense and admins best knowledge and judgement" to the guidelines. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the image that is in question here is covered by existing criteria (outside project scope). I think adding a line in the regular deletion guidelines stating "Legal status of the image, including privacy and pornography concerns" could be reasonable.--Nilfanion 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the image also violate this page. On this page it says: The file/page violates the licensing guidelines in some other way than being a clear copyright violation.. It does violate the licensing guideline, see above. / Fred Chess 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Violation of policy?

Per point 5: 'Redundant/bad quality: Redundant or bad quality files never get speedily deleted. They have to be listed the usual way at Commons:Deletion requests and will only be deleted on a case by case basis.' - I'd appreciate comments at my undeletion request, where several of my images were speeded under 'bad quality' or 'not used' reasons (per our policy, they should be put on deletion requests).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Procedure for suspected false license?

I can't find anything anywhere in Commons: or Help: that explains what to do if there's an image that appears to have a false license statement. There's no {{PUIdisputed}} or similar template documented anywhere. - 65.203.234.66 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've found the original, or it is really obvious, tag the image with {{Copyvio}}. If it isn't, create a {{Delete}} request. Jkelly 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Special:Contributions/Parisinos? Most are likely public domain due to copyright expiration, yet they're all tagged {{Pd-self}}. -- Jonel 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of archived versions of files

Suppose I uploaded an image, which I subsequently realised contains "private" information. For example, it may contain a face I don't want shown, or may contain JPG metadata that I consider "private". If I then upload a new version of the file minus whatever caused the "privacy" concerns, the original version of the file is still available as an archive version. How do I get this old file permanently deleted?

I know that I could do the following:
1. Upload the new version once again with a new filename;
2. Do a "{bad name}" deletion request on the old filename;
3. Upload once again with the original filename;
4. Do a "{bad name}" deletion request on the changed filename.

However, there must be a more sensible approach. Is there a deletion guideline for deleting archived versions of files for reasons of privacy? Ian Fieggen 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just ask and any admin I know will do it. Currently it's not possible to give a reason for deleting an old revision of a file, but the only reason I can think of is privacy. (Occasionally someone overwrites a file inappropriately, too. that's about it.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I guess this advice should be in the Commons:Deletion guidelines as well, along with advice on how and where to contact relevant admins?

I agree.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates

Can someone please explain to me why you delete duplicates? What is the point? At some time in the not too distant future we might have private wikis or uneditable websites using the commons repository remotely -- are you going to run CheckUsage on them too? Why not just leave the duplicate in place? -- Tim Starling 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support This is indeed a very good point. Since duplicates are not doing no harm they are simply a waste of time to delete (we currently have a hugs backlog of more than 500). Lcarsdata 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not exactly that all of us think deleting them is an urgent task. But no matter how much we try to persuade people that duplicates cause no harm, they insist on trying to get them deleted. I guess it is some human nature about keeping things "tidy".

It makes some limited sense, in that "forks" of images aren't cool -- all work on one image should be in one place.

Of course, if image redirects worked, we would never have to delete a duplicate... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If image pages were never changed after the upload, duplicates wouldn't be a concern. But they do change - they're categorized, more details are added, descriptions are translated (with luck), copyvios are tagged, edited versions are pointed to, etc. When there are multiple copies of a photo, this work will be split up and become inconsistent. Redirects would certainly help.

FWIW, the 500+ dups that are actually tagged are small potatoes - starting from a database dump last month, I've been able to identify ~ 11,000 pairs (and triplets) of images that are exact byte-for-byte copies. --Davepape 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on wikitech-l, you can redirect image pages. That will have the effect of avoiding most accidental use of the non-preferred image and concentrating improvements in the preferred image. The old name will still work, as required for compatibility with external sites. If the image and all variants turn out to be a copyright violation or undesirable for some other reason, you can identify them by searching Special:Whatlinkshere for redirects, then delete them in bulk.

I don't deny that image redirects would be useful, but we already have something which does almost the same thing, and it seems to me that it will be quite sufficient while image redirects are being developed. -- Tim Starling 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

...

I didn't realise that actually worked.

Looks awful, though: [1]. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look much better on a client page ([2])—Phil | Talk 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We can tweak the display. It's a feature that hasn't really been used, it has suffered some bit-rot. -- Tim Starling 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it... why not delete duplicates? Duplication leads to ambiguity and duplicated work, as mentioned above. With duplicates, the work one must do to update a specific file is multiplied by the number of duplicates. Even if all the duplicates were updating automatically, what benefit would there be from duplicates?

Brion said "Note that duplication isn't a good reason to delete something from Commons, since by definition Commons is a repository" on wikitech-l, but I have no idea what he means. I can't think of a single reason that anyone would store a file twice in a digital repository... if anything, we might want multiple sets of semantic metadata for one file, but not two copies of the file itself. In that case, it could be important to ensure that each file is unique, so that the different sets of metadata could be correlated. ~MDD 46 96 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One reason why you shouldn't delete them is that deleting them doesn't save space, (as deleted images are moved from the Image table to the Filearchive table, and more importantly, it breaks links all over the place. If the deletions were done cleanly, then I wouldn't be complaining, but this is sadly too common. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CheckUsage.php no longer works:
A database error has occurred Query: INSERT INTO log ( `status`, `timestamp`, `script`, `params`, `client` ) VALUES ( 'started', '20070926065940', '/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php', '{}', '<My.IP.He.re>' ) Function: wsfScriptLogInsert Error: 1290 The MySQL server is running with the --read-only option so it cannot execute this statement (sql)
- script start not logged! logging end anyway.
Is it obsolete or need fix? Any hints? --Ankry 07:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great admin Job, I am not amused

A long time ago (about one year) I created a correctly tagged picture within the german branch of Wikipedia. Somebody moved this picture - without any notice - to the commons, renamed it as Image:Cremation_in_Pashupatinath.jpg and forgot to transfer my correctly placed license informations. As a result admin http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MesserWoland labelled this picture as insufficient licensed and deleted this already one years old picture one week later. Really great job!! Rhaessner 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, please just go to Commons:Undeletion requests and give the details, thank you.

Fred Chess 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Using the deletion template

The {{delete}} template has a parameter for a subpage that apparently has to be filled in and which is not explained here. I just struggled with it, and may have gotten it wrong. It should be explained here in the description of regular deletion, which merely says to use this template, not how to use it. - en:Jmabel | talk 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The subpage parameter only has to be filled in if the name of the page where the deletion debate is, is different to the name of the image it's applied to. Most of the time the name is the same, so you don't need to use it. If you manually create a subpage (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/All pictures by User:Foo then on the relevant images where you put the delete template, you'd need to fill out the parameter subpage=All pictures by User:Foo. I wrote some info about it a while ago at this page: Help:Mass deletion request. There is also some info on template:delete about usage. Does it make sense now? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete vandalism images speedily?

As I mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Camo brief.jpg, shouldn't our speedy deletion guidelines allow attack images to be speedily deleted? I don't see the reason for differentiating between vandalism in media files on the one hand and in pages on the other, as the guidelines currently do. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, indeed our current guidelines don't mention attack images. I think you could edit it to mention them. They are usually speedily deleted when brought to our attention (and if you really want an image speedily deleted, it's fastest to tell an admin individually or mention it on IRC). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for corrupt files?

I think that corrupt images, such as images that do not display or create errors, should be able to be speedily deleted. On Wikipedia, the template {{db-noimage}} allows corrupt images to be speedily deleted. I want to create a similar template for use on Commons, and add it to the deletion guidelines page, but I just want to get approval from others beforehand. –Dream out loud 04:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to have just one {{Speedy}} tag -- what is actually the purpose of a bunch of different speedy deletion tags? Tagging with {{speedy|Corrupt file}} should be enough, imho. / Fred J 10:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite duplicates

I read the above discussion about deleting duplicates, well if deleting duplicates is contentious, deleting or replacing near duplicates is even more so. eg this [[3]] is wrong. Image Image:Satin_bowerbird.jpg should be replaced with the later and bigger version Image:Satinbowerbird.jpeg. Also in general if such a bot edit involves editing QI or FP archives it shouldn't be done as it then makes a nonsense of the archive (as that wasn't actually the image evaluated) - so bias it towards keeping the QI or FP version. --Tony Wills 12:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to raise a flag to Bots so they don't edit archives? Once again we have a bot replacing images in an archive [4], which makes a nonsense of the archive. Both QI and FP may have many revisions of an image, all are liable to be similar, all should be kept to show the images revision history. If for some reason it is found to be necessary to delete one of the revisions it is still not appropriate to replace the image refrence in the archive. --Tony Wills 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the archives were protected, the CommonsDelinker bot should not be able to edit them since the bot is not an admin. /81.231.248.85 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

restore

Hallo how long after deletion can the images be restored? --Raul6 08:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

File undeletion was enabled on June 16th 2006. Anything deleted after that date should be able to be undeleted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

wrong tag?

What's the procedure for an obvious wrong tag? I mean this image Image:HallDórásgrímsson12.jpeg is obvious that it doesn't fall into pd Norway which is over 50 years old or the photographer died 15 years ago.--Kolrobie 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there may be other reasons for this image to be Public Domain (i.e. the picture is PD but the tag is wrong), the best way is to ask for the image deletion with {{Delete}}. However, if you see the same image on the Internet with a copyright sentence, then it is a copyright violation and you can use {{Copyvio}}. As a rule of thumb, in case of doubt, use {{Delete}}. — Xavier, 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Claims of copyright violations

Today, someone asked a question on the Dutch language Wikipedia Helpdesk (nl:Help:Helpdesk). He asked how to start a deletion procedure for a photograph that violated his copyright. In this case, it was a photo of a part of a T-shirt with a logo (Image:Naturistensymbool.jpg, will probably be deleted soon). The photographer had claimed it as "own work", but the logo was copyright protected by someone else. Also, the picture was not used as an illustration of T-shirts, but as an illustration of the logo itself. We referred the person with the copyright-violation claim to the commons-website, but I wondered what the general procedure is for this type of situation.

This is the situation I intend to discuss:

One person uploaded a picture, claiming to be the author.
Another person or organisation claims to be the real copyright-owner, and wants the image deleted.

Now, which procedure applies?

It is not "Missing legal information", because the image was labelled perfectly as "own work".
You might consider it "clear copyright violation", but if it is just a claim of one person against the claim of another person, that does not apply either.

Now, I am thinking about a situation like this, where someone took a photo of a copyrighted work and simply (and clearly incorrectly) stated : "I took the picture, so I am the author".

Which rules apply in a situation like that? Johan Lont 16:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Superseded clause

I think we should leave this as a valid reason for deletion, but I see many comments like "superseded images are not deleted". Now, I thought we only stopped speedy deleting them, but whatever. The policy says that "the file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one." Should this be kept the same given the current attitude on COM:DEL? Rocket000 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, deleting superseded images might cause more harm than good, because if the file is gone all references to it (from written sources or other websites) will end up on a missing image page. Also, historical information is often lost when a superseded png is deleted in favour of a derived svg file.

Perhaps it would suffice to replace a superseded file on all Wikipedia projects, and to remove the image from all categories and galleries so that if won't be used by mistake.

Fred J (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't think removing it from categories is such a good idea. We'll end up geting even more uncategorised images then. But removing from Wikpedias yes. Whether deleting or not I'd say never delete if the new one is based on the old one (possibly upload on top of the old one if same file extension). If the new one is unlinked to the old one then deletion could be a possibility but would have to be motivated. /Lokal _Profil 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any great harm done if someone uses a 'superceded' image by mistake. If the image is marked as 'superceded', someone will notice that there is a 'better' version the next time they click through to the image, and being a wiki, replace it if appropriate. I think we should retain the history of each image, often improved versions initially look great until someone comes along and compares them minutely with the original. That can not be done (by a not admin user) if the original is deleted. Retain them in the categories, but remove them from gallery pages. That is one reason to have parallel category & gallery systems - all images for a subject can be found in the category, a useful selection (as defined by whoever last maintained the gallery) can be found in the gallery. --Tony Wills 11:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the best thing to do. My question though, is should we allow "This image is superseded" as a valid deletion request. I know it's been decided (and I think everyone agrees) that superseded images should never be speedy deleted, but about going the DR route? Like I said, I think in some cases the old file is worthless. For example, with simple chemical drawings, why keep a PNG (or worse, a GIF) that is unused and clearly inferior. Same goes for any PD-ineligible drawing. The history isn't important because it's not a derivative. What about when the images are done by the same author and they're also the one requesting deletion? There are other factors I think we should consider and not automatically reject the deletion request. We should deal with them on a case by case basis. This is what I think, but the attitude on COM:DEL seems to run contrary to this. That's why I'm wondering if we should remove/reword this part in the policy. If not, we need to stop closing these DRs as "superseded images are not deleted" or "no reason to delete". Rocket000 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If Commons wants to be more than a place to store images for Wikimedia projects, superseded images should not be deleted. When users outside of Wikimedia use Commons as an image source, they need the license information to remain at the same image page they got the image from. Therefor superseded images has to be kept, and renamed or duplicated images has to be redirected to their new name. This is for the same reasons that Commons needs to be able to rely on the sources for images that are copied here from other websites. Reusers of Commons should not need to use some complicated process, like the one Commons uses for Flickr images. /90.229.135.159 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

With regard to [5], what proof is required? Thanks. MikeHobday 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See COM:OTRS. - Rocket000 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Factually incorrect diagrams

I have just created Template:Disputed diagram and Template:Disputed chem, but I could not yet find a guideline for how to deal with factually incorrect diagrams (such as wrong chemical structures). What is the current procedure? Cacycle 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To fix it. :) - Rocket000 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No.. I guess you're looking for a better answer. Incorrect diagrams are not in themselves reason to delete. You got to remember this isn't an encyclopedia. We're not presenting them as true. If you're the one that created it, then it can be deleted if it's not used. However, if it is used, then the deletion request starts outside of Commons. Meaning you go to Wikipedia or where ever and discuss why it shouldn't be used. Sometimes though, incorrect images are used in discussion and they're saved for historical purposes. Just like in Wikipedia, when a article contains false information, you don't delete it, you fix it. It stays in the history. There's lots of reasons for keeping these factually untrue diagrams. Putting 'em in articles is what the battle should be over. NOT simply hosting it. So I don't know if those templates you made are a good idea. We try to avoid arguments over images. If one doesn't like it, they are urged to create their own "correct" version. How other projects use the images is up to them. We don't decide for people. We let them chose. If people can't agree on one, we keep them all - right or wrong. - Rocket000 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I see how you're using those templates. Not a bad idea, but usually we prefer using {{Rename media}} or {{Fact disputed}}, since images themselves can't be right or wrong, but their names and descriptions can be. - Rocket000 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While Photos cannot be right or wrong diagrams can. But anyway How should I warn potential users that this Image:Malta Cross.svg is not a precise representation of the actual object it claims to represent [6]. Nor does it use the correct colors. While commons is not an encyclopedia, it is a publisher of information, and should at least warn users where it is known that (diagrammatic) information is factually incorrect or imprecise. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you rename it to a suitable name, is it still "wrong"? Like I said only names and descriptions can be wrong. I think those templates on it now should be enough to warn people (although image-specific disclaimers aren't really Wikimedia's practice. We have Commons:General disclaimer.) Rocket000 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that images can in fact be factually wrong! Just think of graphs. Or chemical diagrams. of course we can argue endlessly on what a fact is, but let's not get into that. I just would like to say that the use of those templates should actually be considered good practice, where a simple rename would not suffice. Something similar would also be applicable in photos that use False Color. Think of it as more meta-data rather than a disclaimer. I apologize for the aggressive tone but being a proud Maltese I find the particular image Image:Malta Cross.svg slightly offensive (in a comical kind of way) --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But if it wasn't called "Malta Cross" and instead called something like "fictional cross of somewhere besides Malta" would it still be wrong? Rocket000 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

General procedure and Duplicates section

I'm in the process of updating the German version of this page and stumbled over the duplicates section and the duplicates part of the general procedure section being completely different. Which one am I to believe? --rimshot^talk 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of talk pages

The speedy deletion section says "A talk page of an already deleted page or file." may be speedily deleted. The section Talk pages says that talk pages should not automatically be deleted. Which one is it? --rimshot^talk 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My admin instincts definitely tell me it should usually not be deleted. Perhaps this was meant to refer to description pages for deleted media files? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it means talk pages of deleted files only (at least it should). And if there's some important discussion there it should be moved to some page in the Commons namespace to avoid confusion when a new file is uploaded with that name. Rocket000 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed it. I also added a new one for speedy delete (non-controversial, but I hope I worded it right). The part that says "A user page or subpage whose deletion has been requested by the user." should be changed too. In practice, any non-image page where the sole author requests deletion can be speedied, however user talk pages are the least likely to be deleted upon request (e.g. A user who wants to erase their collection of copyvio warnings should not have their request granted). Personally, I would never delete user talk pages, "courtesy blanking" is most I would feel comfortable doing (or not reverting, I guess) if there was a good reason, but none come to mind. Rocket000 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pictures

How do I go about requesting to have all the pictures I've taken and uploaded deleted? Thanks. --Dysepsion (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are absolutely certain that the deletion of files falls in the speedy deletion criteria such as an upload error, a clear copyvio, "fair use", non-commercial and such, use {{reason}} or {{Copyvio}}. If there may be the need for discussion, the files should be listed as a mass deletion request (see Help:Mass deletion request). Remember that if you released a file under, for exemplae, CC-BY-SA or GFDL license, you can't withdraw this agreement.--Trixt (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Author rights

Even if the author rights have finished, the author has moral rights, even if hi is dead, and the right are used by their family. For example right to delete own work or a work of a parent (for example). Pérez (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC) If the author make a mistake he has the right of a deletion. Pérez (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of images with possible content licensing issues

The {{copyvio}} template states that This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. I've always taken this to mean that the file itself has to be a copyright violation, but recently, I had an image speedied as "copyvio" because the content of the freely licensed image was, in the opinion of the admin, held to be in violation of COM:CB#Product packaging. Is this allowable and/or desirable? Jpatokal (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's easier if you post queries in one place, rather than in three separate places as you have done with this one. I have answered on my talk page, and have explained there how to request a review if you disagree with the deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They're different queries, and this one is not addressed at you. The issue is not this specific deletion, the issue is whether speedy deletion of images that fall in the gray zone of Commons:Licensing is permissible. Jpatokal (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If it contains copyrighted material, i.e. certain packaging, then it's not really freely licensed. It's a derivative work. You don't gain the right to release other's people work under whatever license you want simply because you took a picture of it. Rocket000(talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly, but it's not what I'm asking about.

Once more: my question is whether speedy deletion of images that fall in the gray zone of Commons:Licensing is permissible. That is, can a single admin decide whether a picture of an object incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article [7] and adjudicate whether or not the image is fully or partly in the public domain, or should such discussions go through the full COM:DR process?

To use my own image as an example, the "Budweiser" logo itself (even in Arabic) is just text and probably does not qualify for protection. The Budweiser shield-with-wheat thing above would, but I can find a bottle from 1920 using the same design, so its creation predates the January 1, 1923 cutoff and is thus in the public domain in the US. But how about that green apple then?

What I'm trying to say is that these decisions are complex, they should not be left to the whims of single deletionist admins, and the speedy deletion requirements as written at the moment do not allow them to do so. Jpatokal (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jpatokal here. Speedy deletion should be restricted when the copyright violation is obvious. Yann (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're asking whether certain kinds of copyvios should be exempt from speedy deletion. Correct? I agree that non-obvious ones should go through regular deletion. The thing is, the gray zone gets smaller and smaller the more you know about copyrights. So as a result, what is and isn't obvious depends on the person. And unless you can define what isn't obvious for everyone, I don't see how you can make a guideline better than "If you're not sure, nominate it instead." Rocket000(talk) 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an element here of "what the admin knows" to me. I will be aware of some global brand logos & some regional ones (my knowledge of them will be better than my knowledge of regional logos elsewhere). Personally I only delete copyvios that I feel happy to do - if I am unsure I leave them. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I try to do it the same way. If I'm sure, I delete, if not, I don't delete, even if the file is in the copyvio-cat. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

{{copyvio}} is for obvious cases. If it is not obvious to me, it is not obvious enough & I have frequently been a tad perturbed that people have tagged things which are totally non-obvious ("Well obviously website.org has a license which isn't free as discussed on some obscure template talk page!" or "Clearly the restriction on FOP in Country makes this unacceptable!"). We should err on the side of more DRs and fewer speedies, I think. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Derivative works are copyvios. Now, what I really want to be speedyable, are license violations (like putting a GFDL work in a CC-BY-SA picture for instance, like that flower pic on RFD right now, the "incompatible licensing" issue). ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We honestly should make more of an effort to get the licensing straight. The incompatibility is understandably overlooked, but there's so many cases out there where the license is simply ignored. I see things like a GFDL derivative being PD-self or something. It makes me want to speedy delete them on sight, but usually they can be fixed... We really need to do away with the "self" thing. Many times, you have no choice. Rocket000(talk) 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Labeled policy, but titled guideline

This page is labeled policy, but its title is "deletion guidelines". Should it not be "deletion policy"?--Chaser (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the page name. :) Rocket000(talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That other thing

Done ;) --Chaser (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, I'm looking for help. I made some crap Image:Secteur-NBH.jpg... I'd like to delete the fourth useless version of file, but i don't really know how to. Can someone do that ? --II...Richard...II (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, how polite you are. Thanks all for replying. --II...Richard...II (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We need "definitive" guidelines for Speedy deletions

Unlike on many other Wikimedia sites, we don't really have much of a definitive "criteria for speedy deletion", so if anything, I propose this:

Criteria for speedy deletion

A file, category, or other content on Commons may be deleted "speedily" (as in without much discussion) if it fits one of the criteria listed below:

General

Vandalism and nonsense, content that has no meaningful content or history, often consisting of gibberish or unrelated information, such as vandalism or test pages.
Author requested, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If an file is currently being "used" on a Wikimedia project and it has not been replaced already, this criteria may not be used.
Consensus to delete, where a nomination to delete something results in a consensus to delete.
Advertising and spam, pages or files that exclusively and blatantly promote some entity and are also out of scope.
Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as pages for files without a corresponding file, or talk pages without a corresponding page, unless it contains useful content or discussion that can be maintained there.
Technical, some non-controversial maintenance may require the temporary deletion of pages.
Attack, any page whose content is specifically an attack on its subject, and there is no neutral version to revert to.
A redirect which leads to a non-existant page, or whose target has been deleted.

Files

Copyright violation, an file that is an obvious copyright violation or infringement.
Non-free image, a file licensed under terms that are considered "non-free" per the licensing policy (such as non-commercial use only, no modification, or no license at all), or are asserted to be used under the doctrine of fair use (which is not allowed on Commons).
Missing legal information, a file that has been tagged for one of the following conditions for 7 days:
1. The file does not have source information
2. The file does not have licensing information
3. The file is not self-made and it does not have an assertion that the copyright holder agreed to the licensing declared by the uploader.
Duplicate or bad name, if a file has been uploaded with an incorrect or improper file name or is an exact, scaled, or inferior duplicate of another file on Commons, it may be deleted to correct the situation.
Useless, a file that is not a media file, not in an allowable format, is so low-quality that it cannot possibly be used for an educational purpose, or is corrupt or empty. If it is a broken SVG file, attempting to fix it first is recommended.

Think this could be a good idea? ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty much what we already have.. At least that's what I see under "A file in Candidates for speedy deletion can be speedy deleted under the following circumstances:" Do you mean we should start using a certain exact wording for each criteria when we delete under those conditions? Personally, I wouldn't want to start seeing things like "db-g12" or "db-r1" used around here. en.wp makes it way too complicated and instruction-creepy. So much time is wasted arguing about each little detail, they miss the big picture. If you put that much weight on what is or isn't written, people start following the rules by the letter of the law instead of the spirit. We all become lawyers and bureaucrats. Rocket000(talk) 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons is different than wikipedia in the sense that most delete/not delete issues are amanged by in-community standards (notability, what wikipedia is not, merge or split articles, etc.). Commons does have such standars as well, such as the project scope, but it also relies on standars external to the community: something being or not in public domain according to applicable laws. Our own internal policies are relaxed and to be followed by it's main idea rather than by it's exact wording; but real laws are not. "Instruction creep" and "wikilawyering" would have to be avoided in what is internal to us, but not in issues related to law: all the points and commas of the law that should be taken into account, must be taken into account.

In short: policies of the type "wich profile or purpose do we want Commons to have?" should be general and followed by it's main idea. Policies of the type "Is this thing truly in public domain or free to use, or not", should be as detailed as possible into what s set by the law, even if that means falling into following a boring but needed strict set of conditions and standars. Belgrano (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you also put how to insert/talk back a disagreement to the speedy deletion? I've just arrived here from a bot that put speedy deletions nominations to a lot of the pics on the [€2 commemorative coins] page: "An image used in this article, File:Commemorative coin Belgium 2009 Braille.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?"Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image for this article before it is deleted." A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 8:00 am, 6 May 2011, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+2)". The image is really gone, can't recuperate it anymore I have the impression and we're only May 14th... that's 8 days ! That's not enough time even for such a heavily used page for people to take corrective actions. Anybody knows how to contest the deletion. the commons:COM:SPEEDY has no indication how to do that imho. Help ! Thx.--SvenAERTS (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

JPEGs and TIFFs

Hi all, our newly enabled ability to upload TIFF files has come with a small hitch, so explaining the workaround here. TIFFs aren't thumbnailing. We're uploading a selection of them for the restoration project, where it's important to work from uncompressed files. So in order to provide participants with a visible version in galleries we're also uploading a downsampled JPEG to match each TIFF. Each pair carries a description and crosslinks in the 'other versions' section of the file hosting page, and filenames are identical except for the .tif and .jpg suffix. Once Commons gains the ability to display TIFF files in thumbnail we may delete these JPEGs, but until then they're necessary. Best regards, Durova (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Appeals

Under "Appeals", the policy says, "To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion," but fails to explain what the subsequent steps should be, should the admin not respond satisfactorily. Powers (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deleting temporary files

We really need some kind of system for dealing with temporary files on Commons. When images are being discussed in forums like en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates or en:Wikipedia:Picture peer review, it is common for other editors or the original image creator to experiment with variations on crop, levels, sharpness, colors, projection, etc. in order to facilitate discussion of the various qualities of the image. Or in some cases an image is magnified and cropped to point out flaws to other editors. After the discussion is over, these temporary images usually just sit in Commons, cluttering up the categories, and creating confusion for later editors. In almost all of these situations, they do not contribute any additional educational value to Commons. If someone actually goes through the trouble of nominating them for deletion, the result is always the same: after a few months, the nomination will be closed as "no valid reason" since deletion closers don't believe "superceeding" or "temporary" are valid reasons for deleting images. As such, I would like to propose the following addition be made to the criteria for speedy deletion:

{{Temporary}} for files created solely to facilitate discussions of other files (for example, in a featured picture nomination).

(Obviously, if this criteria were accepted, the template would need to be expanded with instructions and translations.) Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I support that. However, I prefer that users that upload temporary files for discussions elsewhere to upload to those projects locally if they can. Commons is for images that you want other people to use. Rocket000 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, such images are almost always created on Commons, as people just consider it to the be default image host at this point. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

True, that's why it's not a practical solution, but it doesn't hurt to mention it. Rocket000 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that some wikis have completely disabled local uploads making that impossible. /Lokal _Profil 11:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Kaldari's proposal. I agree with Rocket's point too. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose We're an image host where people can expect to have images around forever, temporary images are not part of that. Just use an imagebin if an image is just to point something out. Multichill (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- How do you include external images on wiki pages? I didn't think that was possible. Even if it is, it's not at all practical, as you couldn't just host the image (legally). You would also have to host the original license, a list of all the contributors, etc. No one's going to do that just to point out a flaw in an image. Kaldari (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as discussed above, this proposal is not about saying whether people should or shouldn't host temporary files on Commons. Obviously they shouldn't, just like they shouldn't host copyvios on Commons. This is a proposed solution to the problem of what to do about the cases when people do upload temporary files on Commons. Why would you want Commons to indefinitely keep such images? Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  - Well, why does one keep these discussions? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    - They're kept to document the status of the image on the local project. Ideally, we would also keep the commentary images on the local projects, but the problem is that they always end up getting moved to Commons by bots, although they serve no purpose here, and generally aren't needed in the original discussions once they are over. Perhaps a better solution would be a {{Move to local project}} template. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Don't we have a rule that if an image is in use in a wiki then it can be on Commons? Moving them back on a local project would be a violation of this rule and also waste of time. We should either delete them or we could make a template for them to tell us it is a "test" and place it in a "test category". --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I just don't see a need for this. If everyone, including the uploader, agrees that a file is useless, they can already nominate it for speedy deletion. (Although I just checked, and "uploader request" doesn't actually seem to be listed as a valid speedy deletion reason on COM:DP, in practice it does seem to be generally accepted.) However, in many cases uselessness is in the eye of the beholder, and what looks like a redundant variant to one person may be another person's preferred version. I suspect that, if such files were routinely deleted, Commons would be poorer for it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Uploader request" is definitely not a reason accepted by most deletion closers on Commons. If we could add that as an official speedy deletion reason, I would certainly be satisfied. Currently, most deletion closers (regular or speedy) seem to be of the opinion that unless an image specifically meets one of the criteria given on this page, it should never be deleted, regardless of its usefulness. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  - Uploader request cannot cannot be the only reason for a speedy-delete; there has to be some other specific reason accompanying the uploader request. Otherwise there would be cases of self-deletion out of pique or spite, or in an attempt to retract previously-granted licensing terms... AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    - The English Wikipedia has that criterion, qualifying it with "if requested in good faith and provided that the page's only substantial content was added by its author." The "good faith" part is taken to exclude those reasons you worry about, and is expanded upon further down the page. Also, admins are expected to exercise some judgment and may decline speedy deletion requests for pages or files that seem useful, even if made in good faith. It seems to work there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this -- it would have kept Image:File:Suchy-prob-TEMPORARY.gif from hanging around for six months... AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I also support that temporary images can be deleted fast and easy. But we need to have some criteria for this. A criteria could be, that the image is no longer in use. An other criteria could be that it must be the uploader who puts on the template and if it not then the uploader must be warned and have some days to object. Could you make a proposal for a new template? I think it should include the criterias so it is easy for deleting admin to see them. --MGA73 (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Taken right out of the deletion policy: deletion is warranted for "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject." Unfortunately Commons has become an inclusionist orgy and subsequently a dumpster for redundant files. There is no good reason to keep redundant copies since any edit made to a temporary copy can be made again to the original if someone wants to. This has to stop, and here's a good solution. upstate NYer 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I propose that we include "Off-topic talk page discussion" (ie. talk page of a file that is completely unrelated to the image content itself) as a speedy deletion criteria. Currently we have several thousand talk pages with little or no value that in my opinion could be deleted. See this, for example. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense is probably already deleted, ~~despite not~~ being mentioned in the policy ;)

Would you give a couple of samples? The link you gave isn't that explicit. BTW you linked namespace 1 (talk pages of galleries). Talk pages of images are at Special:Newpages/File talk:. -- User:Docu at 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC), 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant talk pages in general; not just file talk. :) Anyway, an example would be Talk:Tartaric acid. This clearly isn't appropriate for a talk page, but couldn't be deleted as vandalism/test edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall people speedy deleting such things per "A page that falls outside of Commons' scope.". -- User:Docu at 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I guess... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've always tagged or deleted such pages. I think that it definitely can be added. If there are people writing stuff like this or this, then I see no reason why these pages should be kept. They don't give anything to anyone, and can thus be deleted. You might however want to include a better reason in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown in case you add this (with the {{TALKSPACE}} magic word you can make the reason appear on any talk page, not only gallery talk pages). --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope files

According to the policy, out of scope pages can be speedy deleted, but out of scope files must go through the regular deletion process. I don't understand why files and pages should be treated differently. Currently, out of scope files are either being speedy-deleted despite the policy (example), or being nominated for deletion and eventually deleted after no significant discussion (example). I would like to suggest that "clearly out of scope" be added to the list of reasons for speedy deletion for files as well. Pruneau^talk 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically agree, but would prefer to keep the "out of scope' term firm and use "probably out of scope" or "potentially out of scope" for nominated cases. --Foroa (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is sorely needed, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the out of scope policy has already been abused by admins to delete files in the past. How are you going to prevent this? For example you need only one admin to think User:Wknight94/Quahadi gallery is out of scope. Multichill (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Deleting out of scope files is a tough thing, because unlike with copyvios that clearly aren't keepable, out of scope files might be useful. Can you show me some examples which files you'd consider to be clearly out of scope and covered by this possible rule? The Evil IP address (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

- eventually files such as this File:Benny yuyu.jpg one? --Túrelio (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Pdf files of pictures, modern non reference texts (a lot of people try to load their biography or promo files)
  - Pictures of one or more persons, general landscape and mountain views without any decent description --Foroa (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

However, promo stills of people who are the subject of legitimate Wikipedia articles would be allowed here (promo or publicity photos are actually generally deleted due to copyright reasons). And people are allowed to have a small number of photos of themselves and other personal images on their user pages (see Template:Userpageimage). Random recent snapshots would be generally out of scope, but random shnapshots of 50-60-70 years ago might be of historical interest. And so on... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope isn't always clear, and as AnonMoos points out, there are shades of grey. But in some cases, it's really quite obvious. Examples (from this category): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.

If people are concerned this could lead to abuse, an alternative solution would be to have something similar to en:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or {{Nsd}}: an image could be tagged as being out of scope and if no one disagrees 7 days after the uploader has been notified, the image is deleted. But the policy needs some change: several admins are disregarding the current policy, which is a hint that there's something impractical about it. Pruneau^talk 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:BBSign.jpg, File:Radio Space.jpg, and File:Oscarselemba1.png] are almost ceetainly copyright violations, while File:YouTube fmt 6 thumb.jpg and File:YouTube fmt 6.jpg seem to be part of a technical explanation of Youtube video format quality... AnonMoos (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have suggested to delete the youtube ones, but not necessarily the other ones. Obivously, logos are a problem of their own. -- User:Docu at 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the examples by Túrelio, Pruneau and Foroa to delete them, Commons isn't a private webserver, but in my opinion not via speedy deletion. Don't get me wrong, of those private files, I think we definitely have too much of (just take a look in Category:Media needing categories or Category:Images without source). But should we really delete them, without notifying the uploader and without giving other people time to put it in an article on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects or to proof that it's in fact in scope? Just because we don't find them useful, doesn't mean other people also don't want it. And the problem with deleting because of "We already have enough of them" is that this only applies as of the timepoint when deleting. For example, if now the other files get deleted because there are copyright problems, then we might suddenly have no more or only few images of a subject, because we deleted the (probably) free file(s) and then the unfree/non-commercial/non-derivative files which we had to delete. As deleted files can't be searched or categorized, there's no way for admins to find where possibly restorable files are findable (and also not for non-admins, like Wikipedia authors or people who maybe want to use nice Commons images for their purposes). I once thought about such a "proposed deletion" process (see this subpage), but I abandoned the idea because I wasn't (and still am not) sure if that's really such a good idea. You know, I see the crap that lies around here (most notably in Category:Media needing categories and Category:Images without source), but I'm just not sure if speedy deleting or half-speedy deleting them is the best solution for Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I nominated dozens of files for deletion as out of scope, but I am often overruled by closing admin. It seems like everybody has different idea about scope. As a result I do not like speedy deletion, but I do like Pruneau idea of 7 day wait period, similar to the one used by {{Nsd}}. --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think you nominated hundreds and they all got deleted, no? -- User:Docu at 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

- Comment For me the main point is that these files that can be speedy deleted are "clearly out of scope" - you can find many of them in the oldest uncategorized files (I have looked to them in the last 6 weeks and tried to find categories). Normally they are
a) unused - (if used, they are clearly in scope),
b) without or without appropriate description (sometimes the description is a joke)
c) not edited for a long time
d) uncategorized for longer than 6 month
e) the user is no longer active for a long time (many of them only 1 to five edits)
f) their quality is bad (blurred, small), some are jokes, some are offensive (seldom)
g) very often there name is just a number or a joke
h) they do not show anything that can be used in an educational purpose (with high propability)

(That is the "Ready-for-speedy-deletion"-Syndrome... :) )

The idea of Pruneau, that you have to wait 7 days for a contradiction is very good - as far as I see, this can be a consent. Mass deletions of files from the same user must be avoided (see Quahadi). The user who created them should be notified. One example: should we really discuss about this file?: File:Earth2341.JPG - if somebody is interested, I can add about 15 files from the oldest uncategorized data, that I have collected in 1.5 hours that can be speedy deleted in my opinion. I (nearly) stopped to try speedy deletions until this discussion will have produced a consent. The problem of the files without a source is very different as far as I see. (I hope my English is good enough). Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am totally against this idea. This is just an attempt from admins to become censors, taking for themselves the power to delete whatever they want, without community control. The example mentioned by Pruneau : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gesamt.jpg shows 1) that Pruneau has made a poor deletion request : he should have given a valid reason for deletion : saying "out of scope" is not a valid reason. One must give a very significant reason of why one thinks a file is out of scope. 2) that Simonxag has made the effort of looking at the picture and thinking whether is is within scope or not and saying his opinion 3) that "anonymous dissident" apparently has thought that he agreed with Simonxag.

The presence of 3 people, including one who has seriously taken time to think about what decision should be taken is significant. I totally disagree with Pruneau's comment that this is "no significant discussion".

How could the uploader of the picture defend himself if he is not given a substantial reason ? How could he defend himself if Simonxag had not said a substantial reason ?

Stating a reason why files are deleted is important for insuring justice. What Pruneau is proposing is arbitrary and unfair.

Teofilo (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@Teofilo, is an attempt from admins to become censors - this is a totally unfounded bad-faith accusation. If you aren't able to voice dissent without insulting other users, you should refrain from this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are insulting me, now. Instead of commenting what I say, you are merely making a personal attack against me, suggesting that my intentions are evil, and depicting me as a devil. Have also a look at the requests for deletions on the French Wikipedia, with some days where you can only see less than 10 requests, as admins there have managed to undermine the community control on deletions and deter people from making requests with their "speedy keep" or "speedy delete" which contradict the rules, but admins don't care for the rules. Admins are already too powerful, but they always seek more powers, and Developers help them by always adding new functions to the software that make them always more powerful. Why are admins elected for a life long term like popes, while arbcom members are elected for a short term ? Doesn't that make admins more powerful than the arbcom ? In the United States which power has the life-long term and which power has the short term ? Is it the juges at the supreme court who have the short term while the administration remains forevever until death ? Teofilo (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss admin recall and parallels with the US constitution, the administrators' noticeboard or the Village pump would be a better place (although there is no ArbCom on Commons, so I'm not sure what that was about). Coming back on topic, I wonder whether you also object to the proposal I made further down in the discussion and which was supported by Jarekt and Cholo Aleman just above your first comment: a "proposed deletion" (which could come from anyone, not just an admin), which would include a notification of the uploader and a 7 day waiting period. If the uploader or anyone else objects, we turn it into a regular deletion request to get more outside opinion.

As a side note, I don't appreciate you implying that I nominate files for deletion without "looking at the picture and thinking whether is is within scope or not" and "seriously tak[ing] time", and I very much resent your accusation that I made this suggestion as "an attempt from admins to become censors". Pruneau^talk 08:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To introduce some examples to the discussion I want to add a gallery of pictures that I fished out of the uncategorized files of 2008 (one is from 2009), it takes about an hour to collect them. As far as I see, all of them suffer from the "Ready to speedy deletion syndrome" I mentioned above. So 90 percent of these files are clearly out of scope (in my opinion - I am not a long time editor in the commons!), some of them are blurred and of bad quality, some may be test fotos (in one case the same user added much better fotos of the same person). Nearly all users who uploaded them are long gone, most of them will be unused (I did not looked through for the usage of all of them for technical reasons).

These are examples that can be treated with the above mentioned procedure (Request for speedy deletion, notification of the User, 7 days to wait for comments of other editors) and deleted in the long run - without any loss to the project. (Maybe 2 or 3 of them can be used.) Sorry for this rather big gallery. Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bandeira Dili.PNG

I can't see how this file would be under GFDL/CC-by-SA, given that it's an official insignia. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit 28/02 -- about need to add date

Re [8]

The user adding the template can add a date, but that is not the same as saying he must add a date. No need in making things more difficult or complicated for him than they have to be.

I suggest to revert to the original wording, possibly make a note saying the user may add a date.

Fred J (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Or simply suggest to use {{subst:delete-subst|reason}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way it stands now is guaranteed to confuse users.

I think the simpler, the better.

When adding reference-needed templates on Wikipedia, there is a bot that adds dates afterwards too.

Fred J (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope - penis

After I pointed out that wording of {{Penis}} / {{Nopenis}} and Commons:Deletion policy did not mention penis images as a reason for speeding and it should be fixed if there was concensus that penis images should be speedied, {{Penis}} was added to the speedy deletion list.

Unlike the other images {{Nopenis}} is not supposed to be added on the file page but on the talk page. If we agree that penis is a speedy reason then we need a template to add on the file pages and a new category just like the other speedy template has.

Also the wording of {{Nopenis}} should be changed so it does not longer (only) say "the proposed deletion" but perhaps "that is why your image(s) was deleted. If you disagree you may post at COM:UNDEL." or something like that.

I think that most users agree that we do not need bad quality images. But if we create a template to add on images to get them speedied how do we avoid that some "I do not like porn images-users" add it to all images - including the ones that should not be speedied? Perhaps using a wording that "low resolution images" or "bad quality" or something like that should be used in template to indicate that not all nudity images on Commons should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Commons:Nudity#New_uploads says "In such cases, the files may be nominated for deletion (not speedy deleted), citing appropriate rationale(s)." so it seems that the official status is that penis images are not speedy deleted unless it is copyvios or vandalism etc. So when a new penis is added the proper way is to check if it is better than the old ones and then the "bad" one can be nominated for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"no penis" is a scope issue & a rather contentious one (& "no penis" is STILL not an official policy or guideline; it has NEVER been offered for adoption as such, via open discussion/vote); therefore NOT appropriate for SPEEDY. for the reasons given by MGA73, among others Lx 121 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy concerning fictitious flags

Some weeks ago, I posted a series of deletion requests for fictitious flags for historic or existing countrys, according to the the guideline that Self-created artwork without obvious educational use can/should be deleted. The issue caused some annoyance, because it seems that in ths case, those artwork is generally OK. The problem with such pictures is that some (especcially smaller wikipedias) use those flags like real flags, which means spreading wrong information.
Well, if the community decides to keep such flags, there should be a warning sign which explains all editors that they shall not use those graphics in articles. There is only this little box {{Fictitious flag}}, only in english languages. I propose to enlarge this box und translate it into varios languages and/or add the phrase fictitious flag in every filename.
Other suggestions?--Antemister (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Documenting deletion processes

When a file has been subjected to a deletion process and has survived it, shouldn't there be some visible notice on the media page or talk page about this, linking to the discussion that has taken place? I'm used to this being the case on the English Wikipedia, and i miss the lack of this information easily noticable on this project. __meco (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We already do it, but on the file talk page. Normally it is done with template {{Kept}}. SV1XV (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Very well. __meco (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins closing as delete?

I'm well aware that a non-admin can't close a discussion as delete and proceed to delete the image. However, what if the admin decided to delete the image and forgot to close the discussion? For example, let's say that an image was nominated for deletion for being out of scope, but that midway through the discussion, an admin found it and deleted it because it was shown to be a copyvio, but didn't close anything. Would there be any objection to a non-admin closing the discussion with a message of something like "Closed because file was speedy deleted as a copyvio"? Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can't a bot do that? Close the DR and use the edit summary that was used by the deleting admin? --MGA73 (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
no problem with this action as "tidying", provided the annotation on the close is CLEAR about this & the policy is NOT expanded to non-admins closing other items as "delete" (closing obvious-consensus "keep"s, AFTER they have gone "stale", is fine). saw a discussion a long while ago, about non-admins closing deletion debates & tagging the items as "speedy", which is NOT a good idea; it confuses the issue & any RESPONSIBLE admin would still have to check the original deletion discussion before acting, so it has zero-value as a "time-saver"...

Lx 121 (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving 1,000+ free maps to Commons?

Please see this thread at the village pump regarding whether 1,000+ free maps, for which higher-quality versions already exist on Commons, should be moved to Commons? Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you, Black Falcon (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for new criteria

"Images depicting nudity uploaded by people with no other uploads or significant editing history on commons or another wikimedia project and without an OTRS ticket"

We get a lot of such images many of which almost certainly have copyright issues but it is hard to prove due to the amount of porn on the web flooding any possible search. We are also not short of such images (thanks to the suicide girls release and some well executed images from the German Federal Archive among others) so we can afford to take a safer position with regards to copyright than we are currently doing. Other types of images don't seem to suffer the same sorts of isses since it is less of a problem to find where they have been coppied from and well people are less interested in uploading them.Geni (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate: Which one should be choosed?

There are many confusing cases to decide which one should be merged by. For instance, in one case, Let me assume there are file A and B. A is uploaded before B but B is more widely used than A. In second case, A is older than B, but tagged only in file page of A. Both files are unused. I think we need a standard in choosing which one should be deleted. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally I keep the oldest version. If files are uploaded by the same user I keep the latest one. Sometimes users try to force a rename by uploading a new file. In these cases I normally keep the old one. --MGA73 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a new speedy delete criterion: images uploaded by sockpuppets in violation of their block/ban

I suggest adding an additional speedy deletion criterion: Creations by banned or blocked users. This would cover all images uploaded/pages created banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block. Essentially it would be an analog of en:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5 - the CSD G5 criterion at en-wiki. Allowing images uploaded by block-evading socks only encourgages further sock-pupppetry (even if a particular license happens to be valid), both at Commons and at other WMF wikis. I am currently dealing with just suck a case of an extremely persistent cross-wiki sockpuppeteer, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055 for background. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User requests deletion, which deletion process to use?

Hi all. This image [9] has a note from the uploader that it was uploaded in error and requests deletion. Which deletion process is appropriate for this? The speedy guidelines cover requests by user for page deletion, but not for files. Advice? The Interior (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally it would be a regular deletion request. Given the nature of the error in this case, I'd tag it with {{speedy|wrong file uploaded. Not Notre-Dame de Montreal.}}. -- Docu at 07:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, done. Thx, The Interior (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Change "Out of scope" to a speedy delete reason and add "Sexual content" as a valid speedy delete reason

Per discussion on MediaWiki talk:Filedelete-reason-dropdown it seems that there is consensus that scope is a valid speedy deletion reason.

I do not agree but have to respect consensus. So I plan to move this section: to the speedy deletion reasons:

The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
- Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
- Advertising or self-promotion.
- Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept.
- Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

And add a "If you are not sure it is recommended that you start a normal DR instead.".

"Porn" is also used as a speedy deletion - even if it was one of the reasons that the proposed policy for sexual content was rejected. Therefore policy should be changed to include sexual content as a speedy deletion reason so that the actual deletions follow the policy. --MGA73 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems an out-of-the-way place to reach consensus on such a matter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's linked from VP. A deletion policy talk page to me seems the perfect place to talk about deletion policies. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when are policy talk pages in the Mediawiki name space? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is why he has brought it to this page, so that consensus can be established on the page that does matter...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Policy and actual practice do not have to align precisely, but they should be pretty close (IAR is for reasonable exceptions, and no policy can cover every eventuality). The proposed change here is actually several changes - its not simply adding "out of scope" to the speedy list - its adding private image collections, self-created artwork, advertising/self-promotion, low quality and redundant, and sexual stuff. That's at least 5 different things, which ought to be considered separately as establishing consensus to add "Commons is not Facebook" is independent on also adding "Commons is not a porn site". While we are at it, we should also add office actions to the list (DMCA takedowns for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I had recently nominated many images, for better or worse in various peoples' opinions, based on the very section you list above and using the first bullet point in particular. The first bullet point seems to be sore spot for some people, who point to collections of Wikimedia meetups and similar activities when their personal images that are unused are nominated for deletion under that criterion. The third and fourth bullets for vandalism/attack and advertising/promotion would be better candidates for speedy deletion as they are more straightforward. I don't believe people would support the last bullet point for speedy deletion because it could be subjective as to whether a file is educational. While I hope that my or others' nominations don't place an excessive burden on administrators, I also don't think that changing the first or last bullets to speedies to cut down the load would go over well. – Adrignola talk 23:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletions under "Commons is not a porn site" are out of policy and should be - they have frequently been overturned on review at undeletion requests. I would vehemently oppose any attempt to justify this abuse of tools. The suggested extension goes far beyond what would have been permitted by the rejected Sexual content proposal (which was largely opposed by people who felt it would lead to invalid deletions). I'm willing to concede that we need to be able to speedily delete clearly out of scope images, and I've done so myself, but that's quite a different matter - and it should be limited to images that are clearly out of scope, while those that are less obviously out of scope would be subject to deletion review just as before. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to the proposal. Vandalism and personal attacks are already eligible for speedy deletion (see COM:SPEEDY). Everything else in the proposal are just unnecessary and overbroad, and gives to admins tremendous power to randomly delete pictures without any serious community overlook. Qualification requirements for admins are too low (really, a lot of admins have just a vague idea about Commons scope, deletion practice and policies) to give them such power. Trycatch (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I oppose any attempt to reduce the official restrictions on speedy deletions. Especially the "porn" argument: Do not forget to add "horses" and "shoes" to the valid speedy reasons... A backdoor attempt to censor Commons despite the failed sexual content policy. Even with the current policy there are some who overrule the policy. Sometimes acceptable (if no one complains it is fine) - sometimes not. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Looks like a sneaky attempt to introduce censorship. SV1XV (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Per Pieter Kuiper it seems that discussion has been unknown to some users and per above it seems that not all agree. I therefore think it would be suitable that we do not change untill we see where the discussion here takes us. --MGA73 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I do not see the need for more speedy-delete reasons. Admins who want to delete images can go do some work on the enormous backlogs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I Oppose using "Porn" as an excuse for speedy, but Support any action to make it easier to delete out of scope files. Many are already speedy-deleted against policy. Having some efficient way to deal with out of scope files would make me much more likely to take more part in deletions. If people oppose speedy deletion, we could go for a 7-day waiting period, à la {{No license since}}. Pruneau^talk 12:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean like a new forum for those deletions? Or that it takes at least 2 users? One add a template and another one deletes if (s)he agrees? Or you mean that it is ok to delete faster than 7 days? All of those are ok with me. --MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a start of a process in place with Template:Out of scope (Category:Possibly out of scope). But the truth of the matter is it might result in backlogs like those seen in Category:Media without a source, where most would be deleted after a far longer period than seven days. – Adrignola talk 21:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Like Pruneau--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose -- scope should NEVER be used to justify a SPEEDY; scope is a subjective, "judgement-call" decision & therefore NEEDS to be open to FULL community discussion & review.

also: agree that "porn" as a rationale for speedy would be 'massively abused to censor commons & should certainly NOT be introduced as a policy "through-the-back-door" like this. sexual content is clearly a contentious issue in the community, & it's not appropriate to implement changes to policy/guidelines without a FULL community discussion & vote.

bad idea to create a separate "special" tag for porn deletions, for the same reasons; with or without the 7 day debate period, creating a "special handling" tag for sexual content creates a policy, again w/o open discussion/vote/consensus

Lx 121 (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Too many versions

What to do if I corrected a typo error in a SVG file and after saving it found and corrected another typo:

keep even the obsolete middle version or
have the obsolete middle version deleted using a procedure which is yet unknown to me ?

-- Juergen 91.52.165.161 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You can have it deleted by an admin, but there's little point, really. The file will remain stored on the servers, it just won't be visible to most users. Powers (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. -- Juergen 91.52.163.171 23:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

are we talking about uploading the corrected file under a NEW title, or just overwriting the previous version? Lx 121 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Structure

I'm looking at the policy, and find it somewhat lacking in clarity particularly for users who need to delete something. It's structured as "how are things done" more than "what do I need to do to solve this problem?". It would be clearer if restructured something like this, around the type of problem prompting deletion as a solution:

Legal issues (missing legal information, copyvio, privacy, fair use; other licensing issue)
Out of scope (promotional, not useful for educational purpose, redundant/bad quality)
Maintenance (everything else: naming issues, test pages, exact duplicates, etc)

Restructuring in this way would look like a dramatic change, but it wouldn't have any effect on the content of the policy at all - apart from making it clearer for users. I can knock up a subpage draft of how this might look, if people are interested. Rd232 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see a draft at User:Rd232/deldraft. Rd232 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy additions

The COM:CSD proposal is running into certain difficulties. It may be rescued at some point, but in the mean time, I suggest liberating the least controversial ideas from there and adding them to the current policy. The following have little or no opposition in the CSD discussion:

"Content uploaded via license laundering techniques." (F6) This seems uncontroversially a specific form of copyright violation, so it can be added to one of the relevant sections (which one)?
"License review concluded that the recently uploaded content is based on a non-free license, disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works. Files tagged by OTRS Reviewers as having insufficient permission, or files tagged with OTRS pending for over 30 days, may also be speedily deleted under this criteria." (F4)
" Derivative works based on non-free content (such as screenshots of non-free content). This does not include Freedom of panorama cases." (F3)
Duplicate templates: "A recently created template that duplicates an existing older template." (T1) I would suggest a caveat though, "unless the template name is a translation of the target template, or the name is in common use at another Wikimedia wiki - in this case, convert to a redirect."
Unused templates: "Unused templates (except maintenance/project templates that are substituted)." (T2) I would suggest the caveat "If the template creator is still an active contributor, please check with them first."

So - can we add these? (That would turn 5 red headings at User:Rd232/speedydraft green.)

In addition, there were concerns about the existing Fair Use speedy in that discussion. I suggest adding "Before deletion efforts should be made to see if a file can reasonably be moved to a Wikimedia project which accepts fair use content, especially where the file was moved to Commons from such a project or is in use in other projects." Rd232 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

re: "Content uploaded via license laundering techniques." - i.) define "license laundering techniques" pls? ii.) are we assuming that ANY file is PROOVEN as a copyvio on this basis? ifso, then pls provide rationale for this assumption.

also, with respect, it's not really good practice to try & "insert" policies here, when they are still under discussion @ the other page. please either focus on the other page, OR argue policies here but NOT BOTH AT ONCE!

Lx 121 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

i) Commons:License laundering. I accidentally dropped the link to this which was there in the policy draft. ii) there is a generic "copyvio" speedy criterion in the existing policy. This seems just a clarification of a special case. As for proof - well the current policy for copyvio speedy isn't clear on what level of proof is required. iii) with respect, I've explained why I've brought here what I thought were the least contentious parts of the proposed policy. Rd232 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, having caught up on ALL the convo threads over there, i can understand your motivations, BUT it's bad form to be trying to push THE SAME policy changes in both places @ the same time. how about we finish up with the discussion there, THEN consider any changes here, one item at a time (once the outcome of the discussion @ the proposed policy page is clear)? Lx 121 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" them, and somewhat resent the remark. I'm just trying to reduce the level of mess, which at this point is so substantial I can't see an easy way out of. The discussion at the CSD page is in a very contradictory position, with majority support on a simple polling approach but all kinds of problems with the substance, and the oppositional minority being very vocal. The predictable outcome is stalemate. Doing this can hardly make that worse, not prejudice the discussion. Rd232 (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

no, you're wrong; doing this CAN "make things worse", because it looks like you are trying to circumvent the process underway over there. & "no consensus" IS a community decision, even if it isn't the outcome that you were hoping for; there are well established reasons for NOT making policy via a simple, "blind", vote-count. if you really want to "change things" then either defend the existing policy proposal & try to change the outcome where the discussion & vote is taking place, OR wait until the issue is decided, LEARN FROM the results, & attempt further changes (here or there, or etc.) AFTER that process completes.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're just pissed off because you want the proposal to die. Even the entire proposal, with contentious parts, still commands about 50% support, so suggesting that focussing on the uncontentious parts is somehow bad or "circumventing" consensus is just ridiculous. PS you use various forms of emphasis way too much. When you emphasise everything, you emphasise nothing. Rd232 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

with respect: 1) you emphasize what you want to emphasize, & i'll emphasize what i want to emphasize 2) what i want to emphasize right now, is that it is innapropriate to try to change the SAME policies, in 2 different places on commons, at the same time.

there is a VOTE underway on your proposed speedy policy revision, over @ the proposal's talkpage, the "announcements" for that vote are still running in the page-banners on here. UNTIL that voting/discussion process COMPLETES, the focus of the discussion about these proposed changes should be ON THAT PAGE, not here.

AFTER the issue has been decided over there, then if you want make further proposals for changing speedy here, or there, FINE.

BUT when you draft a policy proposal, call a vote on it, then, when the discussion/vote appears to be turning against your proposal, you come to a pre-existing policy page & try to insert the SAME changes in that other page, while the vote is still going on, then you are being DISRESPECTFUL of the community & the decision-making process

pax et finis -- Lx 121 (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When did the CSD policy draft become my proposal? Are you aware I haven't even voted for or against? I presume you know I haven't been involved in drafting the proposal. Rd232 (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

well, your comment in the vote/discussion was in support of the measure, & you must have counted yourself as a supporter, to reach your claimed number of "supporters", in your tally of the results. if you consider that as "haven't even voted for or against", far be it from me to disagree with you. Lx 121 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: templates - what's the urgency? why is deleting a template "time-critical"? unless the template is malware, copyvio, blatantly defamatory, or is in some other way illegal, or breaking mediawiki, then why shouldn't there be a reasonable (say 7-day) pause btwn proposing its deletion & carrying it out? that would give time for any objections or technical concerns to be aired.

(i'm concerned here (foremost) about "tigger-happy" noob admins who might decide to be "useful" & "tidy" by deleting "old, unused" (probably obscure) templates that are, in fact, of some use to some part of the project. i know that if i'd spent time & effort creating "special case" templates that get used rarely, but are handy when needed, i'd be right annoyed @ finding them just GONE.)

bottom-line: it's a technical issue & (for the most part) NOT a time-critical action (& NOT a very high-priority task).

UNLESS the template's creator is just "tidying up" their own work (& assuming that such deletions are "editing in good faith" & not a disgruntled ex-commons-editor, erasing their contributions), they WHY SHOULDN'T there be time to discuss/raise any objections, before deleting?

if nobody objects, the "net workload" is the same as a speedy, just spread out over 2 edit sessions.

if there ARE objections, then it probably shouldn't have been done as a speedy, anyway.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re templates: I looked at the proposed policy discussion and I didn't see the template bit being particularly contentious. Personally, particularly with the caveat I proposed about contacting active creators, it seems fine to me. Templates should be adequately documented so that passersby can understand their purpose; in this case, speedy deletion is unlikely even if they're unused, unless they're clearly obsolete. We do expect admins to show some judgement and not delete things they shouldn't, and if once in a while they do, undeletion is not that difficult. Finally, I've always thought that in borderline speedy cases admins should nominate for speedy rather than delete outright, so that there are two opinions required for deletion (and I've generally done that on en.wp, where I'm an admin). All of that said, the point of this section is to take care of some current uncontentious speedy proposals. If the template bits are contentious, then we won't add them here and now. PS you make much of time-criticality but I think the reason for these proposals is to avoid creating unnecessary deletion debates for totally uncontentious cases. Rd232 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

& i would disagree with you on 3 key points:

1. "We do expect admins to show some judgement and not delete things they shouldn't," -- this seems a wee bit optimistic

2. "and if once in a while they do, undeletion is not that difficult" -- that is SOOOOOO not true, for anyone who doesn't have admin-level powers!

3. "but I think the reason for these proposals is to avoid creating unnecessary deletion debates for totally uncontentious cases" --why is creating deletion debates a bad thing?

if the case really IS non-contentious, then there won't be any opposition, & the the nominating admin can return after 7 days & wipe the item; same amount of work

if there IS opposition, then it probably shouldn't be done as a SPEEDY

tangentially; it is probably also a bit optimistic to expect other admins to show such restraint in tagging-rather-than-erasing; consider it from the deleter's pov: if the user HAS admin powers, why bother with tagging as speedy, rather than deleting? if they consider the item a "speedy" in the first place

& for that matter, if one is JUST tagging, how does it save ANY time & effort to use a speedy rather than a "normal" deletion tag?

finally: if the main intended purpose of "SPEEDY" is NOT about doing "time critical" deletions quickly, then why do we HAVE speedy? it doesn't "net result" in any time-&-effort savings otherwise, unless removing the right of community members to discuss/dispute an administrator's actions is considered desirable...

Lx 121 (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

05:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1) not really. admins who fall substantially short of that should be desysoppped. If this is a big problem, then speedy deletion is the least of our worries. 2) Commons:Undeletion requests. 3) unnecessary deletion debates are a waste of precious editor time. 4) So am I correct in thinking that you're opposing the concept of speedy deletion? You'd have the "deletion tagging" approach with a 7-day delay? Because that would just underline my growing feeling that a substantial part of the proposed policy mess is that editors either do not understand current COM:D policy or are opposed to parts of it. That's a mess even I will throw my hands up, and unless some others start joining this conversation, that's what I'll (probably) do. As a final thought: people who oppose current policy should try to change it. Rd232 (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1) "admins who fall substantially short of that should be desysoppped" -- have highlighted the key words there; "should be" is NOT synonymous with "are".

2) if you actually think that Commons:Undeletion requests is easy, then, with respect, you have been an admin for FAR too long!

3) "unnecessary deletion debates are a waste of precious editor time" -- HOW SO? i) if there are no objections, then there is no debate. ii) define "unnecessary" deletion debates?

4) i'm opposed to the concept of OVER-USING speedy deletion with merry abandon; it was intended a) to make necessary "time critical" deletions quickly, & b) to be used SPARINGLY for non-controvertial deletes. that is not where the proposed policies (& the actions of some strongly deletionist admins) are taking us.

& yes i'd consider that a 7-day "pause" between a deletion nom & close-&-delete is a "de minimus" reasonable waiting period for objections to be raised & discussion of same to at least get started. the existing policy ALREADY calls for such a pause.

i understand the current policy all too well, but i'd like to go a bit more carefully in revising/changing it; & i STILL think we should be debating this on the discussion page for the speedy policy proposal. the discussion & vote over there is still "underway", & (at the very least) UNTIL that's concluded, it is inappropriate to be pushing for those same policy changes to be made here.

i understand that you feel strongly about this & want to "get things accomplished", but there good ways of doing things, & not-so-good ways. to put it bluntly, you're coming on WAY too strong in pushing to insert these policy changes here, when the issue is still "in play" & undecided, over @ the speedy proposal.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1) with respect, people who say that typically turn out to have specific axes to grind that they've been unable to persuade the community share. That said, I don't know how hard or easy it is on Commons, but if you think this is broken, then try floating some ideas at COM:VPR. 2) Never used it, but it looks fine to me. It's not obvious that undeletion debates of borderline cases are going to be "easy" for those wanting retention, or easier than deletion debates for them. Again, if it's broke, propose fixing it. 3) I'm not going to make the case for speedy deletion here. If you want to amend or even abolish the process, don't talk at me as if it's within my power. Make a proposal, and try to persuade the community. 4) yes, in some cases. I'm perfectly fine with more "speedy deletion" cases being converted into "deletion tagging" cases, and I suspect others would be too. You could try proposing that. 5) the CSD proposal is a mess. Were the support lower, I'd be tempted to just close the vote and try and move things forward from there. Because of the support level, I tried this. Forgive me for, erm, trying to be constructive. It's so much easier to be critical than to offer solutions. Rd232 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I like your proposals and the direction you're taking. I was in favor of merging key points from this proposal to the main deletion policy page rather than having a separate one. Keep up the good work! – Adrignola talk 13:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your T1 + T2 proposals make sense. And adding stuff clearly documenting current "best" practises to a policy page is a good thing for transparency. Of course "best" can be disputed, but above all it should be documented. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy removals/amendments

It is increasingly clear that some of the opposition to the proposed expansion of speedy deletion criteria via Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion or via bringing the least contentious parts of that proposal here arises from opposition to the current "speedy deletion" parts of the Deletion policy. This is messy at best, as there remains substantial support for such an expansion. I urge those who have issues with the current policy to come forward and propose changes to the current policy that might satisfy them. Because otherwise, we seem likely to be stuck in a limbo that nobody wants. Rd232 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

again, please WAIT until discussion & voting finishes on the existing proposal, before seeking FURTHER alterations here. Lx 121 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

again, please STOP using unnecessary amounts of emphasis and blocking all attempts to get any constructive discussion started. It's not like the CSD discussion/vote is going to go anywhere from the limbo it's got to now. Rd232 (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

again, i'll write my comments the wat i want to write them; you write your comments the way you want to write them.

re: vote: so close it as undecided then? & take down the banner? i think, at this point that it has finished it's "useful" advertising run, & once the vote is closed, we can reasonably "move on".

keeping it open, & trying to implement changes here at the same time, is a significant part of what bothers me about your approach. it's not right, trying to play "either/or & both at once"

Lx 121 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[10]. Rd232 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"IP adress may not tag for deletion"

Is that the case? Here someone suggests that, at the same time undoing the nominations in question (and labeling them as vandalism). I doubt the rightness of those actions, moreover because this user has built up a not so favourable track record regarding file uploads with copyright difficulties. I hope someone can take a look. Regards, Apdency (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I only have an account here, because that was required for uploads I wanted to test with the new InstantCommons feature on a MediaWiki (not WikiMedia) project. I could claim that folks who cannot upload also have no business wrt the deletion of uploaded files. But that makes no sense, unregistered users might hold the copyright for uploaded media, or might have other valid reasons to propose deletions. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider adding as a requirement...

Images shall not be deleted without a minimum of effort to fix any other Wikimedia project dependency. That is find a similarly useful image and fix the outside uses (or build a bot to do that for you) before deleting used images. The practice today is not only damaging other Wikimedia project that rely on Commons but silently removes the possibility of categorization of images in regards to their usefulness (something that I think active contributors would like to be aware). I'm coming from Wikibooks (see Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#CommonsDelinker for more details) and we are bleeding over there especially after we decided to rely on Commons to handle our images, something the community considered as benefiting both projects is becoming excessively destructive. --79.168.6.93 05:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice but practically impossible in many cases. Each wikipedia has their own image use rules, their own zoo of prescriptions and restrictions... some commons regulars may be well-versed in the rules of one or two wikipedias, but no one knows them all. Basically, there are three likely scenarios:
- There is a close equivalent, -> replace links in wikipedias -> no big deal. Or maybe it is? A file may be good for commons, but is it acceptable on all wikipedias?
- Fair use only -> must be uploaded separately to each wikipedia -> must meet their own FU criteria -> FU rationales -> native speakers required -> sorry, no go.
- What the heck it is all about, anyone? (cannot read Chinese, Gujarati, ...) -> no go. NVO (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For the Wikibooks project we rely on Commons except for fair use images. So the request I was making is to include the requirement to attempt to find an alternative image (as you state on you first step). The issue is that the CommonsDelinker will often silently delete the images use (we use revisions and are considering removing the bot flag just to make the changes more visible) but a simple and mutual beneficial consideration of trying to find an alternative at the moment of deletion is not impractical or increase the workload (we are all volunteers, we should consider that we are all working towards the same goal), preserving the use of Commons images is of ultimate importance to the Commons project.

As for quality control, I don't think it is an issue it is better to have a small mistake that a general loss of information, any edit will fall in line with any edit made at the project if a error is done, someone else would fix it but including a human touch when possible will be better than the normal image removal. --79.168.6.93 03:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion is raised quite often; the problem certainly exists. Unfortunately this solution is impractical, for reasons NVO suggests, plus sheer workload involved. I think what's basically needed is a version of en:User:CommonsNotificationBot which works across the entire Wikimedia wiki ecosystem. (I think I suggested it to the operator once; can't remember what came of that - it may be worth asking again.) In addition, or instead, maybe for images in use there could be some kind of post-deletion placeholder system that makes it easier to understand what has been deleted, and therefore to replace it. For instance, if the file were deleted but the file description page were kept (maybe for a limited time), that would probably help; and the image could be replaced with a "this image has been deleted on Commons - please replace" placeholder (though it won't be possible to localise that properly, there could be localised versions used where usage is on one non-English wiki only). If any of this makes any sense, we can discuss it further at COM:VPR. Rd232 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The first option NVO suggested was what I was after. As stated it is viable, if the will to do what is best for our projects is there. Including it as a guideline to the deletion policy will require that those acting on the deletions would at least consider to take up the task. (My feeling is that it should also be based on the discussion for deletion, I'm registered at commons but never did participate on those discussions but I would expect that at some point some analysis regarding the quality and relevance of the image would constitute a factor for the discussion, this when an obvious case of infringement of rules and rights is not on the table). --79.168.6.93 03:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As a single project "patch" for this problem, Dcoetzee has created {{Fair use delete}}, to be used for images that are considered a copyvio on Commons and have no free replacement and are currently in use on :en. I usually try to think of it, when deleting images. However, the result is that 1) the image cannot be deleted immediately on Commons, which is likely required be copyright law; 2) that I or any other admin colleague has to look again at this image to see whether it has been "processed" to :en, which likely is only done by Dcoetzee himself.
So, it's a nice idea, but you get an impression how much additional workload it produces. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If I know a file is good under fair use at en.wiki, I just upload it myself, then delete. I find it's faster that way. – Adrignola talk 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A template can be useful for (localised) instructions, but to get attention for an impending deletion, you really need to replace the current version of the image with a placeholder "This Image Will Be Deleted Soon" image. The placeholder will show up in any WMF projects using the image. Since the image change in this way doesn't show up as an edit, in addition you also want bots to notify the uploader and WMF reusers, eg on the relevant article talk page (basically what en:User:CommonsNotificationBot does). Rd232 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Now Wikibooks only supports fair use images locally. It would be expected that much like we do when a project is considered for deletion there we normally attempt to find another project that could save the content (some projects are moved to Wikiversity or even other non-Wikimedia projects). In the process of deleting a fairuse image if the uploader is present on the discussion or contactable the rational can be gotten or even it may be so obvious that a bit of good will can enable you (Commons users) to upload the images to the project that is using them. That is all I'm asking, make it a requirement to give some consideration to the instances that work can be saved for the benefit of us all.

I must comment also that I find a bit disheartening that only Wikipedia use seems to be mentioned as a reason to give a second thought in performing a correction while performing deletions. The image tag doesn't have a language barrier and images speak for themselves so context often is not required, and if the substitution results in an error it would be faster corrected since at least the link to Commons will be preserved and the change more obvious. --79.168.6.93 03:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the CommonsDelinker also does substitutions, would it be possible to generically point all deleted images to a boilerplate image indicating users to find an alternative at Commons ? What would be the implications. --79.168.6.93 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WMFOffice

Hello, I'm not understanding why User:WMFOffice is again and again deleting this File. It is a legal german stamp like all the other german stamps uploaded to commons, which are according to Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Germany in public domain.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really helpful to come here after the conversation about this at User talk:WMFOffice. I suggest you email the WMF legal dept and ask for clarification, especially in terms of whether Commons:Stamps and related templates need changing. Rd232 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Privacy

An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion.
The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it.

Currently the policy provides for speedy deletion of unspecified violations of the privacy policy. It's not clear what this means, but I suggest that one of the things it should mean is that privacy issues with images should permit deletion. Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Removal_at_the_request_of_the_subject.2C_photographer_or_uploader points in this direction, saying Generally, images are not removed simply because the subject does not like them, but administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests where good reasons can be given. Privacy issues are an obvious candidate for "good reason", and it would be better to make this explicit. Proposal:

Where privacy issues arise, images may be deleted at the request of the subject or of the uploader, if there is no alternative way to address the privacy concerns (for example, by amending an image description, and revision deleting prior versions). Where privacy issues are obvious and serious, images may be speedy-deleted; otherwise, a deletion request may be more appropriate to consider the issue.

Rd232 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This minor change to wording is an improvement, but the suggestions about deleting images at the request of the uploader or subject are too entirely vague. Images are occasionally deleted at the request of the uploader or subject, so saying that they are "generally' not removed simply because the subject does not like them" is not terribly helpful. It would be far better to lay out some guidelines whereby images may be deleted at the request of the subject or uploader. Such requests should not be left to the judgment of any individual admin, except to the extent that they are applying a set of guidelines. The current situation is that a naive user will likely be unable to have their uploads deleted (by raising a deletion request) while an experienced user will be successful because they know to identify and contact a "sympathetic admin". I would characterize the latter deletions as "out-of-process" since there is so little guidance as to what constitutes a privacy violation. in keeping with the WMF board's statements on biographies of living people, I suggest that we should strive to delete images depicting living people "simply because the subject does not like them" rather than looking for ways to deny their request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"that they are "generally' not removed simply because the subject does not like them" is not terribly helpful." - agreed. My proposal focusses on privacy issues, and I think merely clarifies policy/practice in a way that makes things fairer (since as you say, users not familiar with the system, or without access to sympathetic ears, may not get policy applied this way). If you want to make an alternative proposal that's much broader (deletion at subject request for any reason), that's fine, but I think less likely to be accepted by the community. Note also that I deliberately specified "subject or uploader" to prevent an uploader having identify themselves as the subject, if they're the subject (plus privacy issues may arise for the uploader/author/photographer even if they're not the subject). You couldn't do that for a general "delete for any reason" approach. Rd232 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting a "delete for any reason" approach. I do not think the community would even consider such a proposal. I think we are likely working toward a similar end - to make it easier for people to have images deleted if they are causing them harm of some sort. I do not think it should be necessary for the uploader to identify themselves as the subject (if needed, they can truthfully state that the subject would like the image deleted). My thinking is that any image which depicts a living person should be deleted upon request of the uploader. Requests made by the subject should be handled by OTRS (where presumably there will be some vetting of the claim that they are indeed the subject). Discussions like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peyronie's disease shown in flaccid penis.jpg should never happen. If there was a guideline such as I am suggesting here, they would not. Merely tweaking the wording without changing the vague "privacy issues" part does not accomplish very much in this regard. If that user had approached an admin, the image may or may not have been deleted, depending on how she interpreted "privacy" in this instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Would privacy be a speedy reason or just a standard DR reason? I do think that privacy reasons are a good reason for self-nom deletions to be accepted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I think it should be a speedy delete. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose this proposed change, especially as Delicious carbuncle has contradicted oneself in this discussion. On one hand one is "not suggesting a 'delete for any reason' approach", but on another "any image which depicts a living person should be deleted upon request of the uploader". It was always a concensus that licences are non-revokeable, and that it would damage the project to allow the donator to control the image. Also it is interesting how there is a sense that this should only be applied to images depicting a living person, suggesting that it may easily become a way to delete sexually explicit images through the back door (find an old image, claim that the person there "would surely want it deleted because no sane person would want such an image of them online"). But i actually think that the proposal is too narrow, we should consider all images, not only those which contain living persons. Photos of graffiti, geotagged photos, scans identifying politics or spirituality of an uploader, etc are all potentially disruptive to a person's privacy whatever the policy it should allow the correction of an accidental upload, as such i propose the following: 1) Within 3 days of the upload a self-nomination should become grounds for speedy deletion. 2) Geotag (on page and in metadata) should be deleted from the image upon the request of the uploader, file needs to be renamed upon request if the name suggests geographic location that is not essential to the educational status of the image (For example "US money burning in Poland, Ohio.jpeg" can become "US money burning.jpeg") 3) The link to the uploader's user page needs to be deleted upon request by reuploading and deleting previous edition, that information should be kept in a location only accessible by administrators, to disallow copyright washing or deletion on the ground that it is not self work (perhaps OTRS can be employed for that). I believe that these three rules would allow somebody to protect their privacy without an ability to harm the project. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should revisit my proposal, and leave Delicious carbuncle's comments out of it. It isn't limited to images of living people, and you've partly explained why. Commons agreeing to stop hosting an image has nothing to do with revoking an image license; Commons is a media repository and does not hold the copyright. As for people claiming "the subject/uploader would want this deleted" - the proposal says at the request of. That is quite clear enough for my money; alternative suggestions welcome. Your suggestions 2 and 3 on alternatives to deletion are interesting, and these sorts of ideas should be collected somewhere if the proposal is adopted (or perhaps even if it isn't). Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  - Just to clarify, my comments with regard to "delete for any reason" were in response to Rd232 to make clear that I was not proposing that any image would be deleted at the request of the uploader, only those images depicting living people. That is also not intended to mean that these are necessarily the only images which might be involved in "privacy" concerns, but simply a way to define a broad category of images. I suspect that providing guidance along the lines of "delete images containing living persons if the uploader requests it" would actually cover most of the cases that come up, but that is not my reason for making my comments. My concern is that deletion of images on "privacy grounds" is currently performed inconsistently at best. If the only guidance is a vague "privacy concerns", this is likely to continue whatever the wording. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    - OK. I agree that examples should be added; I didn't want to get into this right now because discussing examples would probably detract from discussing the principle. I would deal with examples later, after the policy has had the principle added into it. Rd232 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A current illustrative example outside of the "sexual" category is under discussion where an identifiable person who never gave a free release for their image to be reused, objects to it appearing in multiple Wikipedia languages in articles out of context (where it illustrates article text about racist organizations) and the Commons image page directly links to a Flickr source (an unresponsive account, unused for 5 years and not owned by the identifiable person) that titles the image "Nazis?". If we receive complaints that identifiable people are suffering personal harm by inclusion of their photograph on Commons but we choose to arbitrarily second-guess reasonable complaints from verifiable email accounts, this would seem to leave us in a position where we have consensus agreed policy such as COM:IDENT running counter to community practice. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, but I would stress it is community practice running against consensus agreed policy, which shouldn't happen. Too often the community amounts to a few people without objective users enforcing the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would object to an image of me appearing as illustration to "racist organizations", even if I uploaded the image myself. This is the {{Personality rights}} and defamation thing, which has nothing to do with keeping or not keeping images but about editors being careful not to second guess what is in the image and not to use images to illustrate something unrelated.

Privacy issues should be about people caught in embarrassing situations, where their person (or official role) is irrelevant for any use of the image for educational purposes, and non-embarrassing images where things they are in their full right to keep private are disclosed.

I am worried that the privacy issues are used to delete important images, where the role of the subject makes the privacy concerns secondary (politicians, soldiers) or as a back door of deleting fully legitimate images because of non-related conflicts.

--LPfi (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like the issue there is not with the photograph but the text, so deleting the photograph doesn't even seem relevant. Unless you can specify the test case in more detail to contradict this? Wnt (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If this concerns a certain upload by a minor, I would say that existing policy likely permits him to change his mind. COM:Photographs of identifiable people prohibits photos taken in private without the consent of the person pictured. And in the U.S. minors are generally viewed as incapable of signing binding legal agreements. Now, IANAL and I won't pretend this is a correct interpretation, but I would suggest that for purposes of Commons we don't have to cut out any upload by a minor; we can take his consent at its word - unless he contacts us and says he doesn't consent, at least if he does so before he reaches legal age. In that case, it seems like it should be safest to remove the image. Does that make sense? Wnt (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Defamation

User:Bensin added "* Legal issues of personality rights, such as defamation." to the Privacy section. I'm not sure that this falls under privacy, and in any case it's not "legal issues of personality rights", but "legal issues of photographs of identifiable people". But that's a little confusing because privacy issues will usually involve photographs of identifiable people. Maybe the section should be split into "photographs of identifiable people" and "other", where other would be privacy issues arising because the identity of the uploader (or source) is given, even though they're not the subject or there's no identifiable person. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up in sexual content

There is just too much sexual content on Commons. There are nearly 1000 human penis images. I guess everyone would agree that the number is way too high and unnecessary. I therefore propose that all sexual content can be deleted if they are not in use on any project within one month after uploading. That way we can prevent users using Commons as a personal porn repository. Wiki-Taka (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

First reaction: LOL. <opens popcorn>. Second reaction: there are probably 1000 images of the Eiffel Tower too (Category:Eiffel Tower). How many is too many? Seriously, we don't have an answer for that, and I think there's certainly room for a serious debate about what degree of duplication of similar content we need in order to fulfil our educational remit (we're not aiming to be Getty Images - images for every occasion, purpose, and need). I'm especially thinking here that the category system doesn't scale indefinitely, and the search is seriously flawed, so more and more and more content (much of it very similar or of mediocre quality) makes it hard for users to find the really useful or really good stuff. Rd232 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion considered harmful

I consider speedy deletion for non-identical scaled down versions harmful, see my post at Template talk:Duplicate#Speedy deletion considered harmful. -84user (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

~~== Graffitti ==~~

I just uploaded file:Tom Mix dendroglyph.JPG (and file:Tom Mix dendroglyph title.JPG) to illustrate en:Arborglyph, having seen that there's a lot of graffiti here. Now I see that there's a tag casting doubt on the copyright status of graffiti. Is there a policy? Did I make a mistake? And it belatedly occurs to me—is it possible that Tom Mix's estate has personality rights covering this picture? JerryFriedman (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind—moved to Helpdesk. JerryFriedman (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extend grace period of "no permission" tag

The OTRS queues are often heavily backlogged, from 2 weeks to over a month. Currently, {{No permission since}} only allows seven days before an image is deleted for having no permission, which is far too short for the OTRS ticket to be processed. Then you have to go to the trouble of getting the image undeleted before the OTRS tag can be slapped on. I propose that the period be extended to one month. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There is {{OTRS pending}} tag for that. Yann (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
However, people do not actually do that very often in practice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not modify {{Image permission}} to provide instructions on adding {{OTRS pending}} to the file once they've sent the email? —SpacemanSpiff 06:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS pending is no guarantee that an deleting admin pays much attention to a grace period - see this example. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's a problem with admins, not with the template. I restored these 2. SpacemanSpiff's suggestion is good. Yann (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Derivative works should not be speedied

Please see my argument at Template talk:Derivative. I believe that this templates violates this policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion now at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Derivative. Rd232 (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

update: {{Derivative}} deleted 20 November. Rd232 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Educational use and "original research"

I am somewhat concerned about the outcome of this discussion concerning the deletion of a file and its derivatives Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg. The discussion went off on various tangents, but the closer decided that the image should be kept. I find this outcome astonishing. If it is valid I think we have a problem of policy that needs to be addressed. Essentially the file File:Naser al-Din Shah slide.jpg is a pure fantasy on the part of the artist/uploader, purporting to represent a slide used by a Persian shah in his harem. The image bears no resemblance to any actual description. It is essentially a pure act of sexual fantasy "inspired by" the idea of this slide. What we are being asked to preserve is not a user-created diagram or technical drawing, but a work of imagination. Essentially it is like preserving my drawing depicting any historical subject I can think of. If I create my own drawing of Shakespeare at School, can that be kept (and possibly used in relevant articles)? Or my personal interpretation of an orgy in the harem of a Chinese emperor? At the end of the discussion the closing editor stated that there is no "original research" policy at Commons. I replied that if that's the case there is nothing to "stop me uploading my own drawing of Adolf Hitler being received into heaven, or, for that matter, a diagram illustrating from made-up population statistics that the Holocaust never happened? Do we really want Commons to host such images to be visible everywhere?" The reply was "To respond to Paul Barlow, no, we do not care about original research, nor should we. If something is fictitious, that doesn't mean we shouldn't host it." This, in my view is preposterous, and if it is true, something has to be changed.

Possibly some form of OR policy should be developed, though I realise it's fraught with problems when it comes to images, since many images are imaginative - and we don't want to be deleting paintings of Moses Parting the Dead Sea because the artist's rendition is "original research". But equally we don't want wannabe artists uploading their own drawings or paintings of any and every historical event they want to depict, or imaginary portraits of people of whom no real portraits exist, or illustrations of inventions that are not technical drawings, but imaginative. Where established artists have created such images they can be uploaded, and, of course, are. But if this closing "KEEP" is a precedent, you have no basis to delete my own personal drawing of Hitler Entering Heaven. Of course I haven't drawn it yet, but I might... Even if the current "educational use" requirement is considered to be sufficient to cover this, some clarification surely needs to be made. Paul Barlow (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we want to keep things like that? They should be accurately labeled in the descriptions, of course, but "educational value" doesn't always mean "accurately represents the facts". If nothing else, images can be used as examples of artistic techniques ('Here is an example of a pencil drawing that indicates motion') or as bad examples ('Here is an example of the neo-Nazi notion that Hitler was a saint, which everyone else believes is pernicious nonsense') or even as legitimate illustrations of concepts ('Some Christians believe that God's mercy extends even to the point of allowing notorious sinners like Adolf Hitler to be forgiven and enter Heaven'). Remember, too, that Commons doesn't exist solely for Wikipedia, but also for Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and for non-WMF websites, such as blog posts about whether Hitler ought to be eligible for entry into Heaven.

What we need is not to delete the images, but to get them properly labeled. So I think your next step should be to find that description page and write something like "One artist's personal idea of what this could have looked like. Not based on any published description of the actual object." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of empty categories

There ought to be noted that categories do not qualify for speedy deletion just after having been emptied unconsensually. --Abderitestatos (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Personality rights

The policy needs to lay out in clear terms what is supposed to happen when deletion of media that depicts a living person is sought by an author/uploader/subject/subject's representative, i.e., that they needn't generate further embarrassment at DR in order to resolve feelings of distress. See here for an example of why this codification is necessary and see here for a parallel discussion. — C M B J 01:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There's another discussion on this subject at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#What_to_do, although it wasn't prompted by any particular incident. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

MUST change to accommodate Creative Commons’ trademarks, which are licensed subject to the Trademark Policy!

Non-free licenses and fair use

We need to add "and CC". Without a change like this, we'll need to delete a slew of unfree files like . Much of Category:Creative_Commons_icons needs to be fixed, moved or deleted. Some qualify for {{PD-Textlogo}}, but the ones with a varied background don't. See here. Creative Commons’ trademarks, are licensed subject to their Trademark Policy. --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So, first of all, who agrees we ought to add "and CC"?

Support! --Elvey (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, first of all, let's discuss the issues before indulging in a vote-fest. If some of these files are nonfree, why are we hosting them? Wouldn't they then violate the WMF's licensing policy, which also says it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies"? Also, which ones are actually non-free? --Avenue (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy deletions

I propose amending the policy to cover accidental and/or unintentional uploads. This is a common practice and we may as well add it into the deletion policy itself. Key thing is that it shouldn't grant uploaders the right to revoke their license over drama, anger, etc.

There is a competing Commons:Courtesy deletions which I do not agree with as it is trying to mix Commons:Personality rights, ethics, morality and other similar concepts together in my opinion.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoing changes made by uploaders of deleted images

Recently, User:Bava Alcide57 uploaded File:Metz infobox collage.jpg, which was later found to be breaking French non-FoP copyright law and was therefore removed per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Bava Alcide57. However, in the meantime, the uploader has forced his image into infoboxes on several Wikipedias (at least cs:Mety), which, consequently, lost infobox imagery alltogether after CommonsDelinker removed the deleted picture. This has also had a clearly bad effect on that article (and possibly similar articles at other Wikipedias, which are now very difficult to even identify, once the infringing image has been removed). One would wish that the delinker also reverts the uploader's image replacement, in order to leave the article with the previous image that the article featured before it was replaced by the eager uploader's rejected work. While there is lack of care for this, Wikipedians might need to be tracking every single change made by CommonsDelinker, because otherwise this leads to a progressive decrease of quality of the encyclopedia (as compared to increase when better picture is provided, or stable state when original image is reverted upon deletion of a newly proposed one). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Such changes are unfortunate, but difficult to do anything about systematically. The bot cannot know when the now deleted image was inserted and whether it then replaced another image, without complicated analysis of the article history. In most cases this is better done manually by those caring about the articles in question. As they see the bot comment, they can search for replacements and possibly, depending on edit comments, note the earlier image replacement (or even remember it). --LPfi (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I can understand that figuring out the perfect solution might be tricky when other edits have been done to the article in the meantime. However, in such active wikis, it's also more probable that caring contributors will be able to fix the issues manually, as you write. It's those many less active wikis and those many less popular articles that I especially care for, and there all I had to do was a simple revert (actually not that simple for me, because as a non-admin I could not revert several edits - the original uploader's and the bot's - at once). I think that, in such cases, it is technically possible for the bot to spot the difference and revert to the original image name (although possibly not the description etc., if that was changed at the same time by the uploader as well). It would only mean looking at the last edit (such as [11]) to see whether that was the one which introduced the name of the image being-removed, and if so, taking note of the name that was in that place before the edit. Before using that name, the bot could yet verify whether there is indeed a picture of that name in existence, which would also prevent it from mistaking some article text for an image in case of an imperfect diff. If MediaWiki's software is capable of calculating such diffs, the bot must be capable too. Is there a place where I could suggest this as an improvement for the bot? Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the Discussion link in the CommonsDelinker edit comment I found it recommended using User talk:Siebrand for suggestions. I think something along those lines could be done (you can undo multiple edits yourself, by viewing an older version, clicking edit and saving it). It is probably worthwhile only if the scenario is common. Any more complicated cases will need more accesses, parsing and special casing, e.g. a change in caption or running text referring the image should be restored if the image is, while unrelated text changes should not. Thus every change accompanying the image change or done later should be identified or the image not restored. --LPfi (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the right place. I have just posted a suggestion at User talk:Siebrand#CommonsDelinker should restore previous images when applicable. Please note that while I know I can undo multiple edits at once (that's what I did with most of those affected articles), that means that I need to go without that nice edit summary explaning of what has been removed and whose version has been restored. And it adds extra pain to dig out the original revision's id myself and to need to write the summary in English (I would prefer the automatic one which is in the language of the wiki, but obviously I do not speak all those languages). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Siebrand runs SieBot, not CommonsDelinker. It is a shared page for requests, but two bots service the requests, so he will not be able to assist. Their is not perfect solution, and all sites need to watch the operations of CDL as it is a somewhat bot tool that is operated by people making judgment calls. The author of CDL have mostly moved on, and we are somewhat dealing with a legacy issue, and it really is in need of new owners, especially those willing to take CDL to the next generation — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of the deletion policy with regard to file mismatch deletions

Due to there being variation in how administrators are handling files that are marked as {{Duplicate}} and whether files of different formats are considered exactly the same or not, I have started a conversation at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Variation among admins in application of duplicate policy with relation to different file types. For those who have some of the history, or those who have a strong opinion, please share it at the link. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Appeal

Given the current consensus at COM:AN that one should first talk to the closing administrator, I propose that the text describing the appeal (you might want to discuss with the closing administrator) is replaced with the more strict version at Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal: "If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion). Bear in mind, though, that admins cannot ignore Commons policies nor any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Yes; make it bold. J Kadavoor J e e 08:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose It is fine to go straight to Undeletion requests and there are scenarios (such as when I am handling OTRS requests) that this may be a more mellow path to follow. I believe Eleassar's issues stem from re-raising DRs shortly after an associated bundle DR was closed, which is a different issue, and probably best improved by considering Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

May be better to separate DR and UDR? Here the issue is with repeated DR. UDR is a bit different, in my opinion. J Kadavoor J e e 11:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
They already are separated. Changing this policy to make it a requirement that contributors have to correspond with a deleting admin before going to an Undeletion Request is turning politeness into bureaucracy (most people will interpret "should" as a behavioural requirement which is in practice equivalent to "must"). This is an unqualified requirement making it a can of worms—what about OTRS requests relating to a file deleted a year ago, what about when the admin appears inactive, what about situations of defamation or where the deletion may have related to a previous OTRS request or an matter for oversight? UDRs should never be rejected because the correspondent had not taken this step.

Again, the source of this proposed change was opening a DR after a bundled DR had chosen to keep one of the files bundled rather than delete it. The question of whether you should open specific DRs after a bundled DR failed to get the a result you approve of is quite different from this policy. If there is a proposal here it should be for a clarification to the mass DR guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The word "should" and all the texts quoted by Eleassar is already there. The only thing missing is "If the admin declines to reverse the decision, or ignore your request (consciously or due to inactivity), you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)." to handle the exceptions you raised. People ran for another DR or UDR will only helps to increase the workload of admins. The more problematic, and the current issue is the repeated auto delivered DR message on the user's talk page that has a bad look like a police warrant. Whenever one delivered on my talk page, I immediately archive it to my DR archive page. Yes; I've a dedicated page for that, even if not much fell on my page so far. :) J Kadavoor J e e 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, perhaps we are looking at different sentences for this proposal. I was looking at "To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion. If you believe the deletion was done in error, appealing deleted images can be done at Commons:Undeletion requests." The operative words there are "might" and "can"; there is no "should". --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow; OK. I followed the link above and reached the DR page; sorry. So the contradiction in Commons:Deletion_requests#Appeal and Commons:Deletion_policy#Appeal should be removed. Either "might" or "should"; don't use different words in different places. :) J Kadavoor J e e 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct, as this document is the community agreed policy, whilst the other is just a helpful document, the policy takes precedent in any dispute or as a steer for administrative actions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Which means that I have every right to decide whether I want to notify the closing administrator or not and blocking me for not having notified them would be abuse of the administrator's privileges and setting oneself above the community agreed rules. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Where you see you can repeatedly making DRs until getting your desired result? Read https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use 4 and recollect whether your behavior is comfortable to others. Try to discuss someone you can trust. Did at least one person support you on that AN discussion? Remember, admin has no special privileges; they just execute community consensus. This discussion reminds me that you still try to follow mechanical rules, neglecting the importance of all other aspects, including the feelings of your fellow members as in the previous X-ray issue, etc. (I prefer an EOD in this matter; leaving it to others.) J Kadavoor J e e 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that having one's images nominated or renominated for a deletion review is not comfortable. However, I don't think it is 'harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism'. I'm not repeatedly making DRs until getting the desired result: in many cases I'm completely ok if the case is closed as kept. This one or this one though were not concluded in good faith and it was completely correct to renominate them; there are others like these. They make me think that admins just executing community consensus is a far-fetched statement. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I think that a DR should be reopened only if there is a new fact, or a new argument which were not put in the closed DR. Otherwise, it becomes a blank check for trolling. Yann (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment There's a saying: "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious." That anyone needs written laws to guide him how to behave on the project is disappointing. That they think that without such laws he can do what they like is troubling. I'm not keen to make policy based on one user who just doesn't get it. Is this a general problem? I disagree with Yann that DR should be like re-opening a criminal case and require new evidence. Admins are human and most DR do not have extensive discussion or large consensus expressed. Discussion with someone (the closing admin, another admin, etc) seems wise before reopening. Probably makes sense for the nominator of the first DR to be prevented from re-opening the case -- if it really is a problem then someone else can handle it. Colin (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Yann. --레비 Revi 04:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the specific change proposed. I generally agree with Fae and Colin. Over-regulating this area would be counterproductive. There are other options for remedying a poor DR result, and there can be good reasons not to publicly consult the closing admin. Prohibiting reopening DRs in the absence of new facts or arguments seems too restrictive, although I agree that consulting an admin or another knowledgeable editor first would probably be wise in that case. I like Colin's idea of prohibiting the original nominator from reopening a DR, though (and I would extend this to later reopeners, i.e. each reopener would be prohibited from reopening it more than once.) It seems like that could minimise abuse without being too heavyhanded. I also agree that some more guidelines on unbundling mass DRs could be useful. --Avenue (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate policy is contradictory and annoying (VP link NT)

Cross diskussion-link → COM:VP#Dupe policy is contradictory and annoying → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Creator requests to delete some files

hi all.

question: a user on hewiki, who uploaded numerous files to commons, changed his mind concerning some of them, and wants to remove them from commons. it is understood that legalistically speaking, the license is "irrevocable". however, from a practical standpoint, removing the file(s) from commons is as close as possible to revoking the license. the questions are

can this be done?
(assuming the answer to (1) is "yes): what is the procedure for the creator to request deletion "because i want"?

thanks, peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the courtesy deletions section? Otherwise we're off topic here: You could suggest a change of the proposed guidelines on their talk page, the pump, or the proposals. Admins (not only) here tend to ignore deletion procedures whenever they feel like it, so a general answer could be mu. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

often

@Adam Cuerden and Leyo: Hence, a PNG for (further?) editing, and a JPEG for display is often necessary. That often is rather rare, how about can be justified? –Be..anyone (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DR closure wording

Currenlty, our policy says that "no user may close a Deletion Request which includes media they have uploaded". Because admins frequently delete their own DRed files and I don't see why "involved" users shouldn't close malformed or withdrawn DRs, I would like to replace this by "no user may close a deletion request as Kept which includes media they have uploaded". Objections or other suggestions? FDMS 4 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If a deletion is controversial, then it should be discussed, even if the uploader happens to be an admin and can delete their upload themselves. If the uploader were not an admin, then getting files speedily deleted without public discussion is and should be allowed, so long as there can be no reason to expect there would be later objections. Such speedy deletions may be down to simple errors, like uploading the wrong file or missing a copyright problem, or be more subtle such as ethical or identity issues which nobody would reasonably expect to have unnecessary attention drawn to in a deletion discussion. If an upload is recent, within days rather than weeks, then the uploader should be able to have action taken to protect their own interests if they have made a mistake.

However the procedure works, it is important that the official guideline Administrators is followed, including "administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position". In this way, whatever applies to someone without access to deletion tools (such as myself) should apply to anyone with the tools. --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of speedy deletions, but a) regular deletion requests closed after 7 days as "deleted" by an admin who is also uploader of files in question and b) closes like this one, which I would like to be policy-compliant. Why did you remove the nbsps from my signature? FDMS 4 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe consider it as perfect housekeeping IAR, closing as "withdrawn by nominator" (where that's actually the case) can't cause harm no matter who uploaded the file. A real u+00A0 instead of   looks like some serious formatting error in the source editor. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

IAR is not a reason not to change a policy, and I'm not suggesting adding a long criteria catalogue, only 2 words to clarify. That housekeeping actually made someone contact me offwiki, by the way. FDMS 4 02:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A novice of copyight-based deletions needs help

Hi, there is too many guidelines and I am confused about what is the best strategy. Could you give me any advice?

I found a file to be categorized and I started a discussion here about the model of the airplane. Another user realized that the image is clearly uploaded with an uncorrect licence. There are reasonable doubts that the photos uploaded by this one-time user are probably taken from the US Navy archive. The main proof is in the exit file: a digital camera model didn't exist in 1967.

Can I use directly template:Copyvio in this case?--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy unclear

Apropos the original deletion shown here It's unclear to me whether the original deletion process violated policy by not complying with process. I propose/request that the policy be clarified so that it's clear to anyone reading the policy whether deleting what seems at the time to be a clear copyvio without tagging it as such or notifying the uploader is in accord with policy. (The deletion turns out to have been in error; I think the policy should make it clear that ~~tagging and~~ notification IS required.) --Elvey (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the point in having a tag in a deleted revision? FDMS 4 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If the deletion is to be immediate, there isn't one; only admins would see it. Modified my suggestion. --Elvey (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing out-of-scope files

Of the reasons for deletion, we have one reason as "Out of scope". The general practice as stated in the policy and also observed so far by me is to raise a DR for files outside Common's scope. It does state that "speedydelete|Reason" can also be used. But I have not come across any such case. (Maybe I haven't wandered much.) Its good in a way that a 7 days period is given to these ex-scope files to debate or bring them in use somehow. But I have observed that a very few DRs are commented by other users and a large chunk of these files are deleted uncontested. Of course, at times it does happen that such files are kept when shown to be useful; but those are rare cases. In the current process where "speedy" is not used and DRs are raised, we create a lot of pages and they add to our daily log of DRs which is over hundred requests. These bytes of data generated in new DR pages can be reduced by adopting different method for such DRs. (I have been told a few times that Wikimedia has gigantic mammoth servers and extra chunk of bytes do NOT really matter. But I still keep coming up with such minuscule space-saving ideas.)
To handle Out-of-scope files we could create a template where files would be added in a category which would be cleaned off post expiry of 7 days. This would be similar to "no source", "permission missing" deletions we currently do. Our template can have facility of giving reason; thereby creating two categories; "reasoned out-of-scope files" and "reason missing out-of-scope files". If a user feels that a file is in scope, they can remove the template themselves and then maybe the original nominator can contest it by raising the DR. This is very much same to en:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure used on en wiki. We would save some bytes and simplify the procedure. Thoughts and variations are welcome! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Forgot to mention that this has been proposed before and the discussions lie in Commons talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1 and/or elsewhere too with no definite conclusion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had literally hundreds of files put up for out of scope deletions that were blatantly invalid, many of these being forms of vandalism. Please keep in mind that uploaders retire, and those that remain are not all here every week and many (like me) have removed their uploads from their watchlists. "Cleaning off" files in a simplistic process is likely to erode many of our more valuable GLAM images over time. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fæ; also, having to nominate a file for deletion twice because some user thinks his/her self-promotion is totally in scope would unnecessarily increase the workload of file curators. FDMS 4 15:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be a rare thing User:FDMS4, I suppose. As said, many images get deleted uncontested. User:Fæ, this proposal doesn't speedily delete the images and it gives same amount of time frame, 7 days, to contest. The uploader would also be notified of it, just like the "no source", "no permission" notifications go. If the uploader is away and isn't able to contest the deletion, they would not have contested the deletion raised in DR anyways. Only change is that instead of having a dedicated page for discussion we will have a simple category. This will also separate out out-of-scope (called OOS henceforth) DRs from other DRs. Many OOS DRs are clear cut meant to be deleted. Admins/patrollers can go through the category, actually seeing the image easily, and gauge its usefulness. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing the image is definitely a good thing for images suggested to be out of scope, but I am a little worried about the proposed procedure. If I think the image might be in scope, I can easily comment in a DR, but am I supposed to just remove the template? The category gives no hint about e.g. comments on the talk pages (or even the reason given in the template). --LPfi (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests for works in public spaces

Would it be reasonable to edit this policy based on Commons:Village_pump#Policy_for_deleting_copyrighted_art.2C_esp._in_public_spaces.3F_.28speedy_vs_nomination.29 this discussion ? Something like "Note that if a media file or article is a suspected but not clear copyright violation (including all copyrighted works in public spaces), it should be placed on Commons:Deletion requests." - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Derivative works vs Duplicate

I am not sure that derivative works can be treated as duplicate work, particularly file edited without purpose or non educational use. See another discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rocket prolant.jpg. --Antan O 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do I want to wait for some more days? --Antan O 11:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

???--Antan O 02:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Procedural change: Transwiki or copy images that are to be deleted

Recommended procedural change: If an image is in use on a project at the time it is to be deleted, the image should be traswikied or copied to the local project provided that doing so complies with the local project's policies (see meta:Non-free content for a list of local policies).

Rationale:

Projects actively encourage editors to move content that is free and within the Commons's project scope to transfer it to the Commons or upload it to the Commons later. If a mistake is discovered years later and the file is deleted, the damage has already been done. Had the uploader ignored the community's advice and uploaded it locally with a keep local or similar template, the worst that would happen is that the image would be re-tagged as a "non-free" image and possibly reduced in quality, but it would not harm the articles that use it.

We want to ENCOURAGE editors to habitually upload files to the Commons rather than to local projects, not DISCOURAGE them. The status quo encourages knowledgeable editors to request that local copies be unnecessarily kept and it hurts both article quality and editor retention when less-knowledgeable editors naively upload files to the Commons only to see them deleted months or years later.

Counter-arguments:

This would be a lot of work and will introduce delays if a file is used on a project where few people speak the language.

Counter-counter-arguments:

In general, low-use languages will not have very many articles and will not use very many images, so this won't be a common occurrence. Also, the first time there is a need to do this for a given language, someone who speaks the low-use language and a more common one can write a summary of that project's local-image policy and "how to" instructions in a more widely-spoken language.

Davidwr (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If the file is unfree in the deleting admin's country, then the deleting admin may get into legal trouble by uploading the file to a different project. Therefore, the deleting admin needs to carefully evaluate the copyright status and the legal risks before uploading the file to a different project. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Transwiki (which, if I understand correctly, does NOT require downloading- and re-uploading the file) should not be a problem. Perhaps a "copy-to" tool similar to Transwiki that copies instead of moves can be written, assuming the Transwiki tools don't already do that. In cases where it is still a legal issue, well, there are many admins from countries such as the United States that would not be legally burdened. Davidwr (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean with 'transwiki'? Transwiki (m:Help:Transwiki) is a method which can be used for copying text revisions of a page from one project to another. For example, you could copy the revision history of a file information page from Wikipedia to Commons. It can't be used for transferring file revisions, so I guess that you are talking about something else.

If you take file or text revisions from one project and post them to another project, using any method whatsoever, then you risk legal problems if the content copied to the other project is unfree. I don't think that it is a good idea to restrict closing deletion requests to admins from specific countries as this would make the deletion request closure project backlogged. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: admins in specific countries:

If this is the case (and your argument is sound, so I assume it does), we already implicitly prohibit admins (and non-admins) from uploading material to the commons that is perfectly legal for the Commons to host if the item is still non-free in that editor's current location even if it is free in the US and in the country of origin (this isn't common as many countries observe the "rule of the shorter term" but it probably happens). By extension, this prohibits those same admins and non-admin editors from making changes to such files such as cropping, improving the contrast, etc. It's a reality we have to live with and we shouldn't let the fact that some of our admins and non-admins are legally prohibited from fully participating in the Commons govern our policies. Davidwr (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, i see no need. It is not admin's work to upload unfree content to local wikis. If a user think it should be hosted on en, then the user can move it by hand. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point: The users who would care, the ones who uploaded it originally and the ones who are (probably) watchlisting the articles in question, may not be aware that the image disappeared until it's too late. Or those editors may be semi-retired and only log into their-language Wikipedia every few months. The issue is that deleting an image from the Commons actually damages other projects without their input in the process, and that this damage should be mitigated in cases where it can be mitigated. Obviously there are cases where the damage cannot be mitigated (if the other project doesn't want the image, then that's that). There are already some editors who upload things to the English Wikipedia with a "keep local" tag just to avoid this situation (this creates other issues since any improvements to the Commons image cannot be seen on the English Wikipedia due to the "covering" effect). Davidwr (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If a user who watchlists a file doesn't log in every month, then the user wouldn't notice a deletion discussion on Wikipedia either, unless the user has enabled e-mail notifications for watchlist changes. You can enable e-mail notifications on all projects, I think. I try to remember to enable that setting whenever I need to watchlist a page on a project I'm rarely contributing to.

Related question: Why isn't it possible to receive e-mail watchlist notifications for minor edits? This is possible on Meta, but not anywhere else that I am aware of. Users who rarely visit Commons may be interested in notifications about minor edits too, and adding that checkbox to Special:Preferences wouldn't cause problems for those who do not want notifications for such edits. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like the actual problem you are trying to address is lack of notice. If that is the case, I think a better approach is encouraging the development and incorporation of crosswiki notification / watchlist features (you might find meta:Crosswatch of interest). —RP88 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of deletion process

This may have been discussed before. I imagine it has. It is a sub issue of the main discussion

I wish to propose that the notification of a deletion process be made not only to the Commons user talk page of the uploader, but to the user talk page of the home project of the uploader. I propose this especially where the image has been uploaded by a process of (eg) en WP, and that the uploader may not be wholly sure that they have uploaded to Commons.

At present we rely on the uploader logging in to Commons and seeing the notification, or on their having set up email notification for new user talk page messages.

Since many images could be retained if only the uploader realised that use of Commons:OTRS to demonstrate licencing was often essential, I believe we could achieve an even better image library and fewer disgruntled uploaders. Instead they discover that their cherished image has been deleted. Timtrent (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would be useful if the deletion nomination script scanned the file information page for an original upload log and notified any users listed in that log on the project the file comes from. The original upload log might contain old names which were changed when a user was renamed, but it would still be better than nothing. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Support wholeheartedly. Davidwr (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hosting of material that is potentially unlawful in the US

Please see the ongoing discussion at Commons:Village Pump#Clarify Project Scope about hosting illegal materials. In that discussion I have suggested adding to COM:D a new ground for deletion as follows:

"Uploaded content which would clearly be unlawful for the Wikimedia Foundation to host on its Commons servers"

To keep the discussion in one place, please discuss there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Superseded images policy (link to VP)

Cross-talkpage link → Commons:Village pump#Commons:Superseded images policy - gone strange? ↔ User: Perhelion 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to see an addition to this policy regarding deletion of categories. It happened more than once that User:A removes a CfD tag from a category page replacing it by {{Speedy}} without further notice on the disc page, User:B deletes the category (AGF) and User:C closes the cfd request for the cat has been deleted. We know, there is a huge CfD backlog, but IMO a CfD should not be killed this way. Therefore I propose to add a sentence that empty categories should not be deleted if they are part of a CfD request that is still open. --Achim (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

By principle, I agree. But there is question of responsibility. I'd like to see, that not only deletion, but also nomination for speedy deletion such categories is not good. Taivo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's a bad idea to speedy-delete a category in this situation, surely it's also a bad idea to nominate it. At best it's ignorant; at worst it's intentionally trying to subvert policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I support your proposal. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Seems like consensus to me, Achim. Be bold, or if you're not feeling bold, you can propose specific wording here first. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick sanity check, yes, that matches. –Be..anyone 💩 17:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

As I tried to describe the (current) real situation for redundant images more precise, this was reverted. In fact this policy is crap, it is a joke to tag an image as redundant. Apart from this, a reference to a historical discussion is a no-go for a readable official policy. People believe in this policy, but they are thoroughly disappointed, that leads to lasting resentment and annoyance. The first step would be to write the resulting points (arguments) from this huge discussion Commons_talk:Superseded images policy to an user-friendly readable policy/recommendation. It is a slap in the face for every halfway reasonable people, if someone give as reason only this huge old crap link. I do see more and more what other people outside from Commons say: "Commons (has no community it) is only an group of single admins to herself administer and lots of users who look neither right nor left." (from one of the most notable admins on De-Wiki)

To be more concrete to illustrate the issue:

There are single notable admins which generally no redundant images delete (for years), if the superseding image is a "newer" SVG (Unfortunately the discussion was not very fruitful...)
On the other side there are admins which ask user personally why he don't tag the superseded (PNG) image with the duplicate-tag (with SVG)!![12]

So this is not intended to be an admin critic, this is a policy critic!! Thanks for attention (and sorry for google-translate) ↔ User: Perhelion 21:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the current situation does not exactly appear to be perfect, I just think it's better to have a policy that leaves room for interpretation than one stating that things are done on a "random" basis. FDMS 4 21:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Too much room for interpretation can look arbitrary, and it can certainly frustrating to those subject to seemingly arbitrary actions. I don't Perhelion's edits were helpful, but we might consider removing a policy altogether if it lacks clarity/consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The summary at the top of Commons talk:Superseded images policy should be on a project page, here or there. –Be..anyone 💩 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Empty categories

Often I notice cases that empty categories are deleted without consideration even though they are useful and don't fall really under the criteron 1 of Criteria for speedy deletion (test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content).

Unfortunately, MediaWiki doesn't enable to track why the category is empty and where its possible previous content disappears. The admin can also not know who plans to fill the category by any content. Even that category's categorization, description and internal and inteproject links can be a "valid content" and relevant useful information, even though the category is empty at the moment. Empty categories should not be deleted mechanically as they represent a real and relevant item and are properly described, linked or categorized and its exceptable they will be used sometime.

I propose to correct the policy in these points:

General: speedy deletion, pages:

current: A category with no content or containing only a parent category
proposed: An empty category, if it is probably unusable or deserted (see below)

Categories:

current text:

Categories that are empty because all of the files they included were deleted or moved can generally be deleted as well and are to be tagged by preference with the template {{bad name|new name}} so that the deletion summary contains a click-able link to the better category name. If the new name is unknown, the categories can be tagged with {{emptypage}}. Please do not blank categories as this generally needs more checking work to avoid vandalism or needless emptying of categories.

replace with:

Empty category (containing no files, subcategories and categories) should be treated according its usefulness:

if it has senseless or unsystematic name or represents an irrelevant or nonsense item, or is not probable it will be ever used, apply {{Speedy delete}} or {{SDG1}}
if it was deserted probably because the content was moved to a duplicate or new category of identic item, apply {{bad name|new name}} or {{Category redirect}} if useful

Do not delete an empty category, as it represents a real and relevant item and is correctly named, especially if it:

contains {{Category redirect}} or similar one
contains valuable description, categorization or links or is joined to corresponding Wikidata item or has relevant interwiki links, or is probably a target of incoming links from articles, lists etc. (e.g. Wiki Loves Monument lists etc.) or was created recently by possible uploader – {{Systematic header}} can be applied for its protection until the category is used
is intended for useful maintenance purposes (pages and files with errors, or with {{Unidentified header}} etc.)

--ŠJů (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

A discussion affecting this policy is going on here. J e e 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Unused bar charts

Hi,

in Category:Bar_charts seems to be some bar charts which are not used in any wiki page. Should they be deleted? And if yes, for which reason, out-of-scope? --Sigbert (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Redundant/bad quality

As worded, we have file a DR, wait for one week (or whatever), then someone has to decide that the DR was accepted and replace all uses, and then someone can close the DR and delete the file. This sounds impractical and actually does not give affected projects time to react. It actually feels a bit like imposing our will on other projects. It also is a bit the opposite of what "in scope" says: Something is automatically in scope if it is used. I would suggest the following procedure: Replace all uses and file a DR, wait the usual time (at least one week), close DR and delete file if the uses have not been reverted. Therefore I suggest the following rewording of this section's second and third paragraph:

Before requesting a bad quality file for deletion, make sure that the file is not in use anymore by using GlobalUsage. You may replace uses of the file on local projects by superior versions, subject to the local project's policies. If at the end of the discussion period a deletion is agreed upon and the file is still not in use, it can be deleted.

--Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree -- User: Perhelion 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Improving deletion procedures

Own work - no permission templates

I'm thinking of creating Template:ow-npd and related templates, as a counterpart to npd and Template:dw-nsd. Commonly "no permission" is used for situations where the user claims something is their own work, but that claim is highly questionable. These new templates would more accurately explain the situation: "If you created it, please confirm this with OTRS. If you didn't, please edit the file description and state where it's actually from."

This wouldn't change how these images are handled in practice, but it would be a change to the text of this policy, requiring discussion. Is this a good idea? Are there any issues that might arise if we go ahead with this? Guanaco (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent idea - I'd support that. I find myself using that template increasingly for work that doesn't look like "own work" but which I can't find a source for. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Support per Herby. — Jeff G. ツ 02:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Support Per Herby as well. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This may open a new door for abuse by deletionists, who want to score points. SV1XV (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sv1xv: I think this potential for abuse already exists with npd. With this change, standard npd would no longer be a valid template where ow-npd applies. Instead, nominations of this type would be in their own category, allowing you and others to patrol and dispute them more effectively. Guanaco (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Support - This seems eminently sensible to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. I like the idea. In the past I created a regular deletion request under such circumstances. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose unless Template:Ow image permission (or similar name) is also created for talk page notifications, much like Template:Dw image source. Weak oppose if created: Commons has {{Fact disputed}}, in addition to {{Wrong license}} and {{Disputed}}. They don't set any time limits, however. I don't like the existing overlap with NPD and DW-NSD right now anyway, because it's sometimes difficult to distinguish which template (or both) one should use. Most claims of own work in the limited scope I review images are DW-NSD, or require nominating for deletion. I can support the notion for improvement, but I don't think a new template in the already existing "mess" is a way to go from reviewer UX perspective. Yet, I have no better ideas for proposal. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 10:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Additionally, I don't know what the upload process flow is from UX perspective. If a majority of uploads are claimed to be own work but it's questionable, I think that's an usability issue on the MediaWiki level (UploadWizard or something) which should be addressed. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 10:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  - An example of an UX issue with Special:UploadWizard: Anonymous contributors are asked to log in when onboarding the upload process. It tells nothing about Commons' licensing policies, or even the option to register. (I've only ever used the experienced basic uploader.) There's nothing on Commons front page to let an user quickly understand what Commons is about, and quite frequently it's confused with Wikipedia (where fair use may be allowed).
    
    There's other UX problems related to this: If you go to a non-existent file like File:Foo bar 1234.jpg through search or directly and you click Create, you're not actually uploading an image or met with instructions. This is an unrelated issue however.
    
    Looking at File:Upload Wizard Slides.pdf (design document), I don't see clear distinction between the choices and explanation what each of the options is. {{Self-photographed}} is also heavily underused, and tagging most of those files as own work is constant source of confusion in my opinion. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 10:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    
    I think the UX issues you describe are a separate, though definitely related problem. We should talk about those in a different thread; maybe make some {{Edit protected}} requests in the MediaWiki namespace. To be clear, this proposal is to create a complete set of templates including more helpful notifications. Guanaco (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Support This has long been overdue. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Support A very good idea. This would be of real help in properly distinquishing a common class of problem images that currently get wrongly bundled in with 'no permission'. No wonder uploaders get confused: they are so often told they have forgotten to give permission, when in fact the real issue is that the permission they have given is suspect. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Question Should we name them "ow-npd" etc., or would "dowd/disputed own work by date" be a better naming scheme? Guanaco (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - no need for more procedures where processing admin has to guess why the tag was pasted. A regular DR works fine for such cases, please don't try do fix things that are not broken - Jcb (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: What do you think of the current use of {{Npd}} for such cases? Guanaco (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe for obvious cases it's fine, but for less obvious cases I think a regular DR is better. Jcb (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I would rather focus on improving the no permission tagg. And let's not create more speedy or semi taggs. We already have to many of those. Let's not turn Commons in a second en-wiki likish jungle. Natuur12 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Natuur: I was an admin at enwiki and desysopped twice by ArbCom from 2004-2006. I'd say it was in part due to my temperamental, teenage nature and in part due to it becoming such a jungle. After coming back ten years later, that community appears even harder to navigate. I agree we can do better than enwiki, for our admins, patrollers, and for our new users. What do you think about implementing quick DR categorization as below? Guanaco (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

that train has already left the station. the commons jungle has a widespread negative reputation. while i applaud the rewording to give the uploader clue as to what is happening, i would prefer a standard of practice, so that the process is less "i doubt that" to curating images and coaching uploaders. 198.24.30.136 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose This is a kind of speedy deletion. Barring outright copyright infringements, licensing-related speedy deletion should only be done in bright-line cases: it doesn't have a source/author/license at all, or it claims that the non-uploader author granted a license, but no evidence of permission is presented at all. This is functionally "doubtful permission", which someone ought to be able to challenge; unless we want to create something like en:wp's proposed deletion system (applying it to files, of course, not the articles on which en:wp uses it), these files need to go to DR unless they're rather obviously not own works and can be speedied as copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Another idea

Maybe my proposal above isn't the best solution. Here's an alternative:

The nsd/npd/nld templates may only be used in cases where they strictly apply. If own work is claimed, {{Copyvio}} may be used as always for obvious copyright violations. Other cases must be listed as a DR. Otherwise, deletion policy would not change.

We create pre-defined DR templates for common file problems. Then we update AjaxQuickDelete (the "Nominate for deletion" tool) and VisualFileChange ("Perform batch task") to have a drop-down menu to select from these options, if one applies. The DRs are then automatically categorized, while the user talk notification templates provide more precise information about the problem.

Some of the templates I would suggest:

These might invoke an optional "type" field in the standard {{Delete}} template. To be clear, these would list the files at DR as per current policy, only with better tools providing categorization and a brief explanation in the uploader notification. Guanaco (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC) (edited 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC) for clarity)

At least absolutely do not use tags for 'freedom of panorama' cases. Those cases should always go to regular DR. Jcb (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this proposal is to extend functionality for {{Delete}}. They would be listed at DR under standard deletion policy. Guanaco (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Blank pages and blank covers from book scans

Are blank pages and book covers able to be speedily deleted, or do they need to be nominated? The wording wasn't clear to me when it discussed blank pages ("page containing nonsense or no valid content"); this seemed to be talking about user created Wiki pages vs. actual blank pages scanned from books or magazines. Examples:

I see these frequently and can't think of any reason they would need to be retained when it's clear they are completely blank. Typically these are full scans done at a high-resolution and so are very large size. Do these qualify for speedy deletion? Is the template {{Emptypage}} appropriate for these? Wikimandia (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Blank bindings or covers can be deleted, however some rare old books have interesting bindings even when blank, or the leather cover may have interest. So as with most of these decisions, there must be an element of judgement as to educational value. In the example given, educational value looks unlikely. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. So where do they fall - speedy delete or nomination process? I can see your point about rare bindings having historic value. Perhaps blank pages could go under speedy deletion but old bindings go through regular nomination? It would be helpful if this could be included in the deletion policy/instructions. Wikimandia (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Convert a deletion request to speedy

Hi,

Is there a good practice to convert a deletion request into a speedy deletion request? If the file targeted by a deletion request finally match a speedy criterion, how to turn the request to a speedy one? For example, like someone ask for deletion because copyvio is suspected, how to turn it into a speedy deletion request if I bring the copyvio evidence?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to do that. Just add your evidence to the deletion request and it will be deleted in time. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Lacrymocéphale It happens regularly that files have multiple tags, technically nothing prevent to tag for speedy deletion a file that is already nominated for deletion, or that is already tagged with "no permission" or "no source". And it happens also regularly that an image nominated for deletion is speedy deleted (with a tag or not) for a reason unrelated to that of the request, and without this nomination being even closed by the deleting administrator, although personally I close the DR when I do it. In summary, and IMO, there is no conversion possible, but you can either add your evidence in the DR, as said by Sebari, or tag it for speedy deletion as if it was not nominated for regular deletion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I'll continue as I actually do with double tagging and/or DR update. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: That's what I do, tag the file as speedy and document that fact and my reason in the DR. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearer instructions for the copyvio template

I'd like to propose adding the following to the "Procedures in detail" section, as the second paragraph in Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. It's to provide simple clear instructions for using the copyvio and copyvionote templates. Being unfamiliar with the procedure, I struggled to understand that I needed to first place the copyvio template, and then afterwards copy from it the automatically filled-out copyvionote template. Alternatively or additionally something like this could be added to the copyvio template Usage documentation.

The {{Copyvio}} template is an often-used speedy deletion tag used for files that are obvious, blatant copyright violations. Place the template at the top of the file's page, using: {{copyvio|1=Reason|source=URL}}. The source URL parameter is optional. After saving it, click on the template where it says "Click here to show further instructions", and copy the displayed {{Copyvionote}} template to the end of the uploader's talk page to notify them. A new section will be created automatically.

Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Support, looks good. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

{{Edit request}} Thanks for the support... I tried to go ahead and make the edit, which I thought I could do on a semi-protected page as an autoconfirmed user, but I got: "Error: Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy."

So I'm making an edit request for the above. Please let me know if there's some other way I should do this, thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you request deletion of only one specific version of an image?

At File:Berkelium metal.jpg the current version (the same as the original one) is not copyrighted, but the version uploaded by User:Am-242m at 01:35, 12 April 2018 seems to be quite clearly a copyvio of Theodore Gray's periodic table poster (although the picture has been changed to something similar to the Commons image, the design of the element tile is quite clearly identical). I would hence like to request deletion of only that middle version, but am not sure how to go about doing this. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: You may wait here or post to COM:AN. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: OK, thank you very much for your help! I've reposted the above material at COM:AN#File:Berkelium metal.jpg. Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate images

Something has to be changed in the procedure of deleting duplicate images. It happened to me more than once that an upload of mine of a photograph was deleted because it got nominated as being a duplicate, and it was replaced by another one. I rarely upload images I do not work on, like cropping, noise reduction, scratch removal or exposure adjustment, and it is strange to note that they are replaced by originals that are not fit to publish. They are not duplicates! Even a minor crop makes them different from the original. The deletion process is rather quick-and-dirty and because the file is deleted, it does not leave a trace in any logging or history-status. I propose that duplicates should be treated as a normal DR, because the uploader should be able to have a say in it if a file is not a duplicate. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the policy is fine as is it, but we may have a problem in implementation. One thing that can certainly help with avoiding deletion of non-duplicates is adding a {{Retouched}} template, since this should make it obvious that the file is not a straight duplicate. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There is one big disadvantage: this is not an obvious thing to do to the general uploader. You would have to convince anyone to do that in order to make the procedure work. Besides, it does not solve the issue of no-logging in case of deletion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Advertising or self-promotion

The "Out of scope" section contains a point "Advertising or self-promotion" as a deletion reason. Similarly, Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion contains G10 criterion: "This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services, outside our project scope. Files that illustrate contemporary or historical advertisements do not fall under this criterion."

I think, these criteria are too vague and tend to be misused or misinterpreted. Generally, every file "promotes" its subject and every file indicates concern and/or interest of its creator as well as its uploader on the subject of the file. This fact itself cannot be the main criterion of compliance with the Commons scope. I think, we shouldn't have too narrower scope criteria for "commercial" or "personal" items than we have for "non-commercial" items (hills, houses, villages, science, nature, events etc.). The "advertising reason" should be not misused for deletion files with envy, within competing fight etc. Commons should be resistant to such damaging concerns.

We should distinguish unwanted files rather by their genre and by quality of their description, rather than seek for some definition of minimal notability level. In essence, it doesn't matter who the file uploaded (whether it is "self-promotion" or "not-self-promotion"). Generally, documentation of persons, facilities, events or goods can be totally in scope even though their are uploaded by engaged persons. Following from the copyright principles, some types of content (related to copyrighted work) cannot be uploaded without author's consent, i.e they needs to be uploaded as "self-promotion" and cannot be uploaded in any different way. We should welcome and inciate such a "self-promotion" of artworks, architecture etc., to cover documentation of architecture of non-FoP countries, document toys, good packages, book and record covers, tickets etc.

We should define, which kind of files is really out of scope. E.g.

images devalued by advertisement writing or retouching
insufficiently described or undescribed images (files) of subjects which are not commonly known and are hardly identifiable from the file without a description, and not really usable and categorizable without identification.

There is a question whether Commons project should have its own criteria of notability of subjects (places, events, people etc.) or some other criteria (private places / public places etc.). Anyway, promotional effect itself should not disqualify a file from Commons. Every file "promotes" its subject. --ŠJů (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Need advice re poorly documented image.

I need some advice regarding a poorly documented image that claims a "public domain" license on the basis of being the work of a United States federal government employee but specifies the author as "unknown", with a source url that gets redirected to a webpage that does not show the image. A corresponding source can be found, but it is in a copyrighted journal article by three authors, one of which whose "present address" at the time of publication was with the U.S. Geological Survey, but probably was not a USGS employee when the diagram was created. That author may be willing to contribute the diagram, but I wonder if that would also require consent from the other non-federal authors.

Also: if an author gives consent, but does not have the original image given to the publisher, is it okay to trace the curves from the published version to create a new "free" version? J. Johnson (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Can you please be specific about the image in your first paragraph? No, it is not 'okay to trace the curves from the published version to create a new "free" version'. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The file is File:Moment Magnitude.gif (and derivatives). J. Johnson (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the source page around the time the image was uploaded: [13]. It's credited to Heaton, et al., 1986, so I don't think the PD-USGov tag is appropriate. However, it may be below the threshold of originality. clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. (Now why didn't I think of that?!) But this just gets curiouser. While the version at the FHA page appears to be effectively identical to what is here, everything but the data curves (and their labels) is an augmentation (or replacement) to the figure in Heaton et al. 1986 (available here). There is also a very similar (but not exactly! tracing error?) figure in Kanamori 1983 (available here; figure 4b, p. 193; figure can also be seen here), which cites Heaton et al. as a 1982 preprint.

~~If Heaton declared the data curves to be his work (I don't know if there is an "original" earlier than the version in the journal), could he then contribute it?~~ J. Johnson (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Upon further examination it appears this figure is likely not original with Heaton et al., therefore they have no basis for contributing it; the original source is copyrighted. Also, it now seems to me that this figure is not useful. (See details at File_talk:Moment_Magnitude.gif.) I believe this file warrants deletion. J. Johnson (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is any PTB paying attention to the deletion requests?

I filed a request on 19 March 2019, and no one bts has dealt with it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: It will be dealt with eventually. Unfortunately, due to lack of administrative time, COM:DR has open requests going back to 6 October 2018. FYI, the correct link is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orange and Pink Lesbian flag.svg. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Done Closed. No reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Every picture I uploaded has been deleted

Can anyone explain why all the images I've uploaded have been deleted? I have many maps made by hand that were in feature articles that are now all deleted. This is many hours of work, but no warning given. I'm very worried, I don't have backups on my hard drive. Mattximus (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: you might have more luck asking the deleting administrator, Jcb, or at Commons:Undeletion requests. clpo13_(talk) 22:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done just that. It would be normal to give warning, no? I even made some graphs by hand which are now deleted. Mattximus (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearer instructions for deletion tagging

The link in the "Help center" for "Copyright violations & deletion guidelines" leads to the deletion policy.

Commons:Deletion policy § Procedures in detail gives good explanations of "speedy deletion" and "regular deletion", but there's barely anything about "deletion tagging" or how and when to use it.

To illustrate, I found a file where the uploader had indicated a "CC-BY-SA 3.0" license, but the provided source url didn't make any mention of copyright. That must be fairly common. I don't have much experience here, and I didn't know what to do.

In the overview, it says "In any case involving doubt, use deletion request instead of asking for speedy deletion". In "reasons for deleting" it says "if a media file or article is a suspected but not clear copyright violation [...] it should be placed on Commons:Deletion requests". I did have doubts, and it wasn't clear, but I wasn't sure that I should start a deletion discussion as it seemed to say I should.

Later, someone else added a Template:No permission since, which I see now is the right approach. But I hadn't been able to figure that out from the documentation. It would be nice if there was some more detail about deletion tagging, and when to use it instead of regular deletion discussion, in cases of doubt. --IamNotU (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Screenshots

A screenshot is taken from a video called "Anytown Main Street". Old description is discarded and new description says "John Doe walking down Main Street". But there is no mention of John Doe anywhere in the video. Is this screenshot a candidate for speedy deletion?. - Odalcet (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgery

Are forged images eligible for speedy deletion? That is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Y Bois (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frederic Y Bois: Hi, and welcome. Which images are you writing about, exactly? What is forged about them? How do you know that? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete Pics

Hai please delete my pics Cindy Abama Rumengan (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cindy Abama Rumengan: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cindy rachel abama rumengan.JPG. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplicates

Do bots automatically delete duplicates? Kingofthedead (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No, and they shouldn't. The so called duplicate could be a better version (resolution, light). A warning message pops up if one tries to upload a duplicate. If this message is ignored, and another person notices the duplicate, one can propose a duplication process, in which the "wrong" image (mostly the newest upload) is made invisible and redirects to the preferred image. See Category:Duplicate. Vysotsky (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)