Commons talk:Deletion policy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

1 Privacy is a right
2 Guideline
3 Permission
4 Objection against speedy deletion procedure
5 Preamble
6 delete
7 How to explain deletion of Commons images at non-English Wiki sites?
8 unclear
9 Categories
10 Deletion comments
11 New deletion criteria
12 Violation of policy?
13 Procedure for suspected false license?
14 Requesting deletion of archived versions of files
15 Deleting duplicates
16 Great admin Job, I am not amused
17 Using the deletion template
18 Delete vandalism images speedily?
19 Speedy deletion for corrupt files?
20 Not quite duplicates
21 restore
22 wrong tag?
23 Claims of copyright violations
24 Superseded clause
25 Request for assistance
26 Factually incorrect diagrams
27 General procedure and Duplicates section
28 Deletion of talk pages
29 Deletion of pictures
30 Author rights
31 Speedy deletion of images with possible content licensing issues
32 Labeled policy, but titled guideline
33 Deletion
34 We need "definitive" guidelines for Speedy deletions
- 34.1 Criteria for speedy deletion
  - 34.1.1 General
  - 34.1.2 Files
35 JPEGs and TIFFs
36 Appeals
37 Speedy deleting temporary files
38 Proposed addition

[edit] Privacy is a right

Privacy is a right anywhere on the world.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Categories

What about category deletion? --Error 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{Speedy delete}} 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)