Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31

Anybody deciding those requests? They are not shown on Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07 and therefore not linked from any lists. --2A02:810D:6C0:2FB0:78FC:6BB8:F538:A54C 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I don't know why they are not included, possibly we are hitting an inclusion limit? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Transclusion size indeed seems to be too big. Will fix itself, once more DRs from previous days are closed. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated a file for deletion for safety purposes

For safety purposes, I have decided that File:Hunslet Class 323 No 323212 (8061897136).jpg will be nominated for deletion.86.139.227.245 15:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

DR discussions closed without responses

I've been seeing images deleted per DR discussions that haven't received replies or votes. Nevertheless, "no objection" have been implied, leading to such deletions. If PROD-like system won't receive sufficient support, then what else can we do about overload of nominations with no replies? Right now, the alternatives we have to DR are speedy deletion requests, but many rationales may not meet one of criteria for speedy deletion. Am I missing any other available alternatives? George Ho (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Most DR's don't need discussion because the deletion rationale is probably right. Considering the volume of DR's, there is no way every DR can be discussed. And be assured that the admins closing the DR's still need to follow the rules whether or not there is a discussion. For example, a copyvio image will still be deleted even if the discussion favors keeping it. Or another example, an image deemed out of scope will still be kept if it is in use. On the other hand, we can reduce the overload of DR's by avoiding wrong nominations. An obvious example is duplicate images. They just need to be tagged with {{Duplicate}} but they often end up at DR. Another option is to enable the "Quick Delete" in Preferences that adds useful links to tag files as missing source/license/permission. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Flawed process

It seems to me that the deletion process here is rather flawed. Although the advice is that images can be deleted after 7 days, there are countless images here where the deletion process is many months old, some going back to last December, with no obvious sign of movement. I guess the problem is that there are many users who will happily add the deletion tag, while there are very few who are willing to make the final decision. I've no idea how this can be resolved, but this clearly need to be addressed.. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of the old deletion nominations are difficult cases, often involving copyright issues that are difficult to determine. For such cases, 7 days is far too short. And often, no matter what decision is made, the closing admin will face a backlash. So no wonder that few admins are willing to make the final decision. Or in many cases, admins just don't have enough info to be able to make the right decision. The best way others can help is by educating themselves on copyright issues, so that they can add their insights to the DR and lighten the load for admins. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Appeal for Consideration of Deletion

I wish to appeal for the consideration of deletion of a file Alhaji-Nasiru-Haladu-Danu as I assure you that I shall ensure that abide by the rules and regulations of the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs)

Torksimlife, please only upload media which you created yourself, or which is explicitly released under a free licence. An image being available without cost online is not sufficient for it to be hosted here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Logo Urban Music Tour

Bonjour,

Pouvez-vous m'expliquer pourquoi ce logo est une violation de droit d'auteur

Cordialement, Julien Sow Julien Sow 2 (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

See the warning on your talk page. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleting

Put poor description of the picture so I'm going to delete this then try again. Chronos Oupavoc (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

the gap

all discussions after the first few days of the month are missing from the monthly discussion lists because of the inclusion limit of 500 or whatever it may be. Im sure all are aware of this, but it seems that it means any discussion started after the first week is likely to fall into the gap. can anything be done? Soap (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate venue to recommend looking into all of the files uploaded by one editor?

Is this an appropriate venue to recommend looking into all of the files uploaded by one editor? If so, I recommend looking into the files uploaded by Ur2nozie. Some are obvious scans or photographs of other documents but he or she has labeled all of them as "own work" and released them under a CC license (e.g., this photograph taken in 1902, this photograph of the same vintage). ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
ElKevbo: I've nominated them all for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ur2nozie. With better source details some might be kept. Ww2censor (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests timeline

I have some outstanding deletion requests, dating from late September and the month of October that have not been acted upon. Is there a deadline or do old deletion requests just fade away and the templated files live on at Commons... Shearonink (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: , they will be closed by an admin at some point. Some times this takes a week, more complex ones take longer. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a backlog from March. So your DR's are actually fairly recent... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion of usersubpages

I don't know how to delete an unused sandbox, created by myself. Paptilian (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed all inline links.Paptilian (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You can tag your page with {{speedydelete|[[COM:CSD#U1]]}}. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dauer des Verfahrens?

Hallo, ich hätte gern gewusst, nach welcher Zeitspanne von den Administratoren über einen Löschantrag befunden wird. Ist es normal, dass es auch länger als sieben Tage dauern kann? Ich habe am 31. Dezember 2020 einen Löschantrag gestellt, über den noch nicht abschließend entschieden wurde.

Hello, I would like to know how long it takes for the administrators to decide about a deletion request. Is it OK that it can take more than seven days? I submitted a deletion request on December 31, 2020, which has not yet been finally decided. JoeHard (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a backlog from May. So your DR is actually really recent... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this information JoeHard (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. JoeHard (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

.

I've done this wrong, I think...

I recently added yet more requests onto the end of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Toilet#Files uploaded by Toilet. I haven't done a mass deletion request before and I think I've done it wrong. Any advice welcome. HLHJ (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Not wrong, but suboptimally, as I try to ensure section name uniqueness.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thank you for the advice. I was worried I'd misformatted it. I'll just be more patient then, and I will use a better name next time, too. HLHJ (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@HLHJ: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. HLHJ (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

.

Protection

How to make a protection to a photo or an article? Awayaway30 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Awayaway30: Hi, and welcome. Please post to COM:ANB at the bottom in a new section. I have sectioned and moved your question.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

deletion request not closed

so its been a week since i nominated a file for deletion and its discussion has not been closed. so could someone please close it. heres the link to the deletion request : Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Military_Symbol_-_Friendly_Unit_(Black&White_1.5x1_Frame)-_Infantry_-_Naval_Infantry_-_Mechanized_-_Heavy_(NATO_APP-6D).svg Patrick799 =) (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Patrick799: Why does this DR need more scrutiny than the backlog from 2020?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request 2021-02-07

{{Edit request}} I noticed that for some categorized deletion requests (such as those listed under sub-categories of FOP-related deletion requests), some closing administrators/users forget to sort them into the "/deleted" or "/kept" ones, which makes finding these deletion requests difficult, especially when they are valuable to later deletions.

I would therefore suggest to add another statement after the section of: ## <translate><!--T:42--> Remove the deletion template from the file description page.</translate>
Add:
## <translate><!--T:43--> If necessary, add/re-categorize the deletion request into appropriate categories.</translate>
I'll be grateful if there are any considerations, and please notify me if there are any questions/suggestions.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Support, and please also mark the page appropriately, given the level of protection.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

{{Edit request}} Commons:Copyright rules by territory and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter are of great value in researching copyright issues and in composing requests when warranted – but are not mentioned on the project page. I think they would fit well in Overview section, and suggest the following addition (existing language in green):

"Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of:
* any binding copyright law (see, e.g., [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory]] and [[Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter]]);

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with deletion requests from late December 2020?

I've had a deletion request open for about 4 months. It's not a complex issue and the editor who uploaded the image agrees it should be deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tracked Hovercraft Ruston (6692327847).jpg. I was wondering why it has taken so long to resolve, and looking at the deletion request page from December [[1]] all the requests from after 11 December are missing. If you look at the bottom of that (very long) opage it appears something has gone wrong. I suspect a lot of deletion requests from the last 3 weeks of December have ended up in a sort of limbo. Laplorfill (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laplorfill: There are simply too many open deletion requests. MediaWiki has some constraints to avoid denial-of-service attacks against the site, and one of them is a limit on how much content can be transcluded into a page. This limit is exceeded here; the only solution is to close and archive requests from the first half of the month in order to make room for the second one. (I archived a long-closed request now, so two more days appear, but that’s still less than the half of December.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Laplorfill: Yep too many open requests. But if the DR is complex or not depends on how you see it. He wrote in the comments that "I have given it 'attribution-share alike'. Is this what you require?". So he licensed it cc on purpose and a cc license is not revocable. So my guess is that it was ARR when uploaded but he changed it to CC per request (perhaps so it could be used on Wikipedia) but he did not update the text. --MGA73 (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editprotected}}

Would it be possible to change the protection message box to: {{protected|this is not where your deletion request goes! Please read the instructions again}}? It's to fix the capitalization with the reason.

Thanks! Casspedia (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for catching that. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-empty category

I found that Category:Deletion requests September 2020 still contains 158 files. These are/were not listed on Commons:Deletion requests/2020/09 How do we proceed with these files? Can they be deleted or kept without extensive discussion on basis of a personal arguments? Elly (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If they would be speedy deleted per COM:CSD (including delayed criteria), then OK to close as deleted. If the result is obvious per w:WP:SNOW, then OK to close as whatever the obvious result is. All the rest should be relisted properly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thanks, i will scan the requests, delete as you say and relist the remaining images. Elly (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ellywa and King of Hearts: People who miscategorized like that could benefit from instruction in the proper manner.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Some of these files can't be deleted due to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T244567 . Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Any speedy deletion rationales available for such DRs?

e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/PartidoNacionalNeocomunistaMExicano.jpg, that all the files "nominated" don't exit. Probably G1? G2? G3? ... Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yes. Yann (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal never to nominate images for speedy deletion merely for FoP issues

Commons is Wikimedia's repository of images, but because each file on this site is an image, with any documentation being secondary, Commons has to have strict policies on what it can host (or at least pretty reasonably feels that it does), in order to avoid legal trouble. Other Wikis, which use images in the context of text-heavy articles (or at least some such wikis), do not have such strict policies, because they believe they can use some images of copyrighted buildings, sculptures, murals and such in context under fair-use exception rules.

When Commons speedy-deletes files like File:Dubai International Airport (Concourse B) WV banner.jpg, which are not only used on en.wikivoyage but are used at the top of articles as pagebanners, it is committing a very un-wiki-like act of vandalism on a sister site. What I'd really like to ask of deletion-nominators is to allow sister sites at least one month between when we're notified about the nomination for deletion (which is sometimes long after the date of the nomination) and when files that we use are deleted, with the obvious exception of files that are outright stolen (someone else's photo grabbed somewhere online and the like). But at the very least, could you please not nominate photos in use on other wikis for speedy deletion unless they're outright stolen images and give us time to decide what to do locally? That would be collegial and wiki-like of you. User:A1Cafel, this particularly applies to you, but it would be nice if we could adopt a rule to stop this kind of vandalism. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong support as a fellow Wikivoyage editor, it's just plain annoying. Even Ljupco attacking me 88 times seems less vandalistic than deleting pagebanners (and other files which are used in articles on other WMF projects like Wikibooks or the pedia). SHB2000 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support. Although certain files may be inappropriate for inclusion on Commons, it becomes disruptive and non-collegial when these images are "disappeared", causing visual damage to articles on other Wikimedia projects where they might be acceptable under such policies as voy:Wikivoyage:Non-free content. In the spirit of cooperation and non-vandalism, Commons deleters must ensure that projects using the images have been notified and given sufficient time to act. --Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment in addition to what I said above, I made a mockup of what a page would look like on Wikivoyage without a banner. See voy:en:User:SHB2000/Junee. I've copied all the content off the real article, but changed the banner to show others who don't normally edit wikivoyage to see how it looks if FoP images were speedily deleted. SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment As per Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File "F3. Derivative work of non-free content. (...) his does not include freedom of panorama cases". Administrators are supposed already aware and are supposed to convert for regular deletions the FOP cases wrongly nominated for speedy deletion. Maybe the wording could be improved a bit to be a bit more explicit though. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This isn't really a problem with most here with readability, it's a problem with A1Cafel. It seems more than clear to me. SHB2000 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Page banners used to decorate non-profit wiki articles are a prime example of Fair Use and should not be speedy deleted as long as the source image and banner image themselves were published under a suitable CC license. ArticCynda (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The proposed rule already exists as part of F3. I would suggest and  Support expanding it further, replacing the FoP bit with: "This does not apply to photographs where the authorship and licensing of the photograph itself is not in question." So this would include other controversial defenses that require discussion such as COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Speedy deletion is continually abused and this should be stopped.
Speedies are there for one reason: when a DR could be opened and would then be closed with unanimous support, because the issue is so clear cut that there is no credible opposition to it. That's the only reason.
If a DR would be contested, or at all complicated, that should never be a speedy instead. Speedies are not there for "I really hate this and I want it gone" or even "We should do this quickly" (Speed should not overrule our normal consensus processes).
Copyright issues are frequently complicated. Especially for FoP. So a blanket exclusion of these from speedies would get my support. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • F3 is for derivative works. It doesn't cover FoP, except where that's a panorama of other works.
We should still exclude FoP from speedies, but for the reason that FoP is complex. This isn't currently stated. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Any image which relies on FoP, is necessarily a derivative work of the original building or structure. I can perhaps expand my wording to continue to explicitly include FoP: "This does not apply to photographs where the authorship and licensing of the photograph itself is not in question, such as when a validly licensed photograph depicts a copyrighted work but a credible claim of freedom of panorama or de minimis can be made." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I support that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, "credible claim" might not be the right way to word it. For example, a photo of a modern complex building in France arguably has no credible claim to FoP, but we don't want to speedy those images. Maybe something like: "This does not apply to photographs where the authorship and licensing of the photograph itself is not in question, such as a validly licensed photograph depicting a copyrighted work (e.g. public art)." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I want to make sure we're on the same page regarding edited versions of images deleted via DR (a different type of DW from photos of copyrighted things). Collages which are in use should be exempt from speedy deletion, as they can be easily fixed by replacing the offending image and we need to allow time for people to do that. Crops or substantial changes to the composition should also be exempt, as it may affect the applicability of COM:DM. But speedy deletion should be fine for alternative versions which have the same composition (though ideally they should have been bundled in the DR to begin with). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support as per King of Hearts, I don't support stricto sensu this proposal as this rules already exist, however (and as a lot of other topics in our policies) it clearly need a better wording and visibility, to avoid misunderstandings and all the small potential conflicts that could come together. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support as per those above - CSDing images which are used on projects is disruptive editing and should not be tolerated. FOP is important but I certainly don't believe they're CSD-important. Haven't read F3 but I would assume it doesn't cover FOP. –Davey2010Talk 20:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support for 99% of FOP cases, but 1% otherwise for images "substantially" showing ads (tarpaulins or posters) of movies or TV shows (because such content are only allowed on fair use licensing, which is not allowed here even from countries with FoP). Cases involving unfree buildings, sculptures, national monuments, public murals, frescoes, and similar public works from no FOP or no commercial FOP countries, should still be filed through deletion requests. Speedy deletions lessen the chances of the restoration of deleted images if either the country/ies amend their copyright laws or the artistic works' copyrights expire, in which admins and other users are forced to look on deletion logs of past and present admins just to file undeletion requests. See particular set of links of speedily-deleted images on the top of Category:French FOP cases/deleted. Even unsued images must still be submitted to deletion requests. Even action figures, toys, anime character-inspired balloons, and the like must be submitted to DRs too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion on in-use images

It seems like part of why Wikivoyage users were so upset by this incident is that in-use images were nominated for speedy deletion without giving them time to correct the issue (either by contesting the deletion or replacing the images). This problem is not uncommon; I happened to come across another incorrect speedy tagging myself today: File:Application Form for Certificate of Puerto Rican Citizenship-Front.png. How about we just ban tagging any in-use images for immediate speedy deletion under certain conditions? These conditions could include:

  • Duration of use: e.g. the image must have been in continuous use in at least one place for some period like a year
  • Location of use: e.g. the image must be used in the main namespace of some Wikimedia project
  • Speedy deletion tags with a 7-day grace period (like {{Npd}}) are exempt from this rule and may continue to be used

This way, people are given the chance to notice the issue and either contest the tag, fix the licensing, or replace the usage with another image, all without a continuity gap. Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That would help. Misuse of "no permission since" is a separate issue (I just stumbled across one where a seasoned editor put the tag on a 12-year old image, because he felt OTRS was needed, with no policy-based reason) – at least there would be a week to contest the deletion. I think duration of use could be much shorter, perhaps a month: I suppose the point is that you don't get immunity by hastily adding the image somewhere. –LPfi (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, maybe those 7-day tags should also be banned on very old images (say, 10 years), forcing a DR. In terms of opportunistic gaming of the system, we also want to keep people from removing an image from all its uses and proceeding to tag it for speedy deletion (akin to unilaterally emptying a category which is prohibited by C2), but there is no easy way for a patrolling admin to check. Probably the best is to just assume that that is not the case and treat it as a user conduct problem after the fact, i.e. progressively sanction users who try to game the system. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd really prefer a grace period of 30 days for nominations of in-use files that aren't outright violations of a photographer's copyright and such, but I'd settle for a week or two, as long as the scheduled deletion date was clear, because just having enough time not to have to rush to rescue a photo before it's suddenly deleted would be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
As Ikan Kekek mentioned, a 30 day period would be great, especially for the smaller Wikivoyage's like nl, ja or bn SHB2000 (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd say a 7-day grace period for even 1 year old files is very little. You can be supposed to be around after an upload, say for a week, and perhaps still remember the details of a file after a month, but after a year you will certainly have to dig old archives, and one week means you have to more or less immediately start doing that – and they may have other things to do. The file can of course be undeleted later, but many non-regulars will give up when the file is deleted, and for files in use, there will be a lot of work in first trying to replace it, then perhaps figuring out where it was used to restore it. –LPfi (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that I would however  Oppose holding up any speedy deletion nominating for in-use images, because these may include in-use on spam-only pages, to which in those cases the speedy deletions would help on fighting global LTAs e.g. Kagemusha (影武者). The need of changing process from speedy to regular DRs should still be judged cases-by-cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
That's why I've proposed a minimum duration requirement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, and LPfi: Currently we don't have a formal 30-day deletion process other than OTRS pending/received (which is generally not applicable to cases of old low-res photos; OTRS is not useful since there is no definitive external website where the photos were published before Commons). DRs in practice tend to last a month or more, but there's no guarantee that one won't be closed in 7 days. I agree that 30 days is a reasonable grace period for old files, but what changes should we make to our processes to accomplish this? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Two come to mind: (1) There could be a new guideline that photos in use on other wikis that aren't nominated for obvious violation of a photographer's copyright should not be deleted less than 30 days after being nominated (though that doesn't address how reliable or speedy the notifications of other wikis are, which is another issue); (2) If that's too complicated, such a rule could be adopted generally, regardless of whether files are or are not used on other wikis, although that might have the unfortunate side effect of slowing down many uncontroversial file deletions. Perhaps other readers will have thoughts on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Ikan here. SHB2000 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
For DR deletions, I think the problem is smaller: we already have the practice of temporary undeletion to copy deleted files to projects that accept fair use, and I'd suppose a DR closed in less than a week would be an obvious case, so the disruption is unavoidable. The main problem is with speedies, the "no source since" and similar, where you'd need to react immediately. If these were all obvious cases, it'd be a lesser issue, but we have had enough cases where these procedures have been abused, and we have admins who delete as "no source since" because there was no {{Information}} and the source explained in Spanish, or obviously PD images because of a lacking or incorrect source statement. Actually keeping to procedure, and having old uploads with deficient information go via DR, would help hugely. –LPfi (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to CSD text

It looks like there is general consensus that speedy deletion should not be used in certain cases, but it's not clear what exactly everyone wants. I've been thinking about what actual changes we should make to the text, and am considering three separate changes:

  1. Right now, F3 says "This does not include freedom of panorama cases." To me, anything taken in a public place is an "FoP case", even if FoP is found to not apply in the end (e.g. the depicted work is a temporary installation). So I propose we change that line to "This does not apply to photographs taken in a public place, though the photograph itself remains subject to the other speedy criteria if its authorship is in question."
  2. Logos that are borderline COM:TOO should not be speedy deleted, but rather a DR case opened to get everyone's opinions. We should add to F1: "This does not apply to works which a reasonable person could plausibly argue is below the threshold of originality."
  3. I think we should exempt all works which appear to be older than some date (to be set somewhere between 1950 and 2000). The further back in time you go, the more likely the work is to be PD because of some country-specific rule that can only be found through careful study, something speedy deletion is not intended for. I'm mostly thinking of copyright expirations that are significantly shorter than the standard 70 pma, such as US copyright formalities, {{PD-Spain-photo}}, and {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Solutions: a) We set the date to something like 1990, and end up wasting a lot of time discussing non-US works that are clearly copyvios. b) We set the date to something like T-70 (i.e. 1951 as of 2021), and end up loosing perfectly good works due to carelessness. c) We set country-specific thresholds. This would increase the amount of instruction creep, but I think we could store the dates separately on an appendix and link it from the main CSD page. Since we are not trying to distinguish between PD vs. non-PD, but merely between possibly PD vs. definitely not PD, the information can be significantly abridged. Having a straightforward table of dates for each country is simpler than trying to decipher Commons:Copyright rules by territory for each country.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose the point 3a, it's too complicated IMO, e.g. if a poster from France and from 1970 is uploaded, it can be speedy deleted. Final point. That's boring to create a lot of new and complicated rules. I'm also strongly opposed to a potential exception for the files in use, if the case is obvious, e.g. the last cover of a magazine, then just delete it, no need to clutter up DR listings and furthermore some DRs (even some easy cases) stays sometimes opened several months. Honestly if one day I lose the ability to speedy delete one of those images "just because it is in use", then I think will give back my tools. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: In any case, images like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ariade Lee.jpg should not be speedied, because there are lots of US oddities like publication, notice, renewal, etc. that require time and effort to ascertain. For 3, we could say something general like "A file should not be nominated for speedy deletion if there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that it is public domain through further research." And then a country-specific table can be given as just a helpful guide, not a formal appendix to the rules. Speedy nominators don't have to read the guide if it's too much for them, but shouldn't be surprised if their copyvio tags get converted to DRs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The guidelines with the suggested edit above look good to me, though I'd love to see more opinions of Wikivoyage editors. I think everyone agrees that Commons should not host magazine covers not in the public domain, and presumably, Wikipedia users know to upload such images locally if they're considered necessary and fair use in a given article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

How to delete uploaded photos on Wikimedia?

How to delete uploaded photos on Wikimedia? Tamonash Debbarman (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Tamonash Debbarman: you can nominate the files for deletion per the details found here Commons:Deletion requests#Starting requests. Ww2censor (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Replacement suggestion when deleting images

Hi,

Currently, when images are deleted, removing them in pages and templates can make the page or template unusable. Before making deletion requests, there should be a search for some acceptable replacement image suggestion(s), because finding replacement is difficult when image is already deleted, its content and category list would have been useful to find replacement.

Also deletion requests should be noticed to all wiki projects where the image is used. Such global message should include:

  • The file name being deleted, and reason,
  • The suggested replacement if possible,
  • The file catogory list to help finding replacement.

-- ◄ David L • discuter ► 11:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How you can make reviewing easier

Hi everyone. I'm helping to clean up the backlog and I'm taking my time (so don't ping me asking me to delete things for you Clin). After almost a decade of reviewing deletion requests, here are a few ways you can help make my job and the job of other reviewers easier:

  • When requesting deletion of a duplicate, please present us a link to the duplicate image. We need to see it.
  • When requesting deletion of a jpg or png because a vector image has replaced it, please link to the vector image.
  • If your image is in use and it's a clear deletion case (i.e. blatant copyright violation, a duplicate, a vector situation) please replace the used photograph on projects with the better or preferred image and tell us you did so.
  • If you nominate to have the files of a category deleted and some might be keep-able or questionable - please list every file. It's not a reviewers job to do the legwork on every file all the time. We need to be able to easily click in the DR to access each image, when needed. It makes our job easier.
  • When participating in a discussion of a mass deletion - 10+ images - please STRIKE the images that are agreed to be kept. Don't just list them out (i.e. "please keep all of these files..." when the list of all nominated files remains at the top) - especially when all the files are in Arabic and um....I can't read Arabic. - strike them in the original list.
  • If you are nominating PORN or SEX or NUDITY or PENIS or BREAST or VAGINA or BUTTS - particularly real people (as in real life photographs) or anime/cartoon (which honestly can be pretty explicit). Something like "this is a pornographic image" or "this image I nominated is of a sexual nature." Nothing is more uncomfortable for me as a reviewer than clicking on a file called "34989208343.jpg" and seeing a rando dude's penis on my screen - especially if I'm taking a break at work and reviewing files. It really ruins my experience. lol (Seriously though) I don't need to be warned of Picasso or Egyptian art, for example, but, when it's sex-oriented photographs or illustration I would appreciate it. This allows me to prepare myself or choose not to review.

Thanks everyone for your patience, understanding and kindness and happy holidays!! Missvain (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Good comments Missvain! We should also add:
  • If you nominate an image suspected of copyright violation, say why you suspect copyvio! The more detail, the better. Nothing is more time consuming for closing admins to research such vague doubts. (IMO, DR's that just cast a vague accusation should be speedily closed as "incomplete").
  • Remember, "small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio).
Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Missvain and P199: That's all good advice, you might want to incorporate it into COM:DR#Starting requests.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Archive_6&oldid=621821788"