Commons talk:Deletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Deutsch : Auf dieser Seite werden Verfahrensfragen rund um Löschanträge diskutiert. Bitte hier KEINE Löschanträge oder Wiederherstellungswünsche stellen.
English : This page is for discussions concerning the deletion request process itself. Please do NOT post individual deletion requests or appeals here.
Español : Esta página es para discusiones acerca del mismo proceso de requerimiento de borrado. Por favor NO añadas requerimientos de borrado individuales o apelaciones aquí
Français : Cette page est consacrée aux discussions concernant le processus de demandes de suppression proprement dit. S'il vous plaît, n’ajoutez ici NI demande de suppresion NI réclamation au sujet d'une suppression.
Italiano : Questa pagina è per discussioni relative a richieste di cancellazione. Per favore NON aggiungere quì richieste individuali di cancellazioni ne' appelli ad esse relativi.

Archive 1
Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Overhauling RFD

I think we should overhaul COM:RFD to be more like the Articles for Deletion page on the English Wikipedia. There are way too many deletion requests to even list here without your browser or the site itself buckling under the pressure. I think we should just sort it out by day on separate pages (which is already possible because I think the current transclusion is already day sorted) and list them out. Oppose, support, or neutral? That, is the question. ViperSnake151 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • I don't think splitting up DRs (Rocket's suggestion below) is a good one...too much newbie confusion, and thus too much work in trying to sort them all. This one works well, I think. giggy (:O) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deciding on if their request is copyright related or not would be confusing to noobs? Have some faith in the Internet age. :) Rocket000 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. Cirt (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Oppose. The only reason to do this (the fact that the current log is too big to transclude, or some crap I don't understand but smart people do) is a solvable problem. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree to Lewis. abf /talk to me/ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

[edit] Comment

  • I agree we need to do something. Mike simply commented out a few days, which is more of a temporary solution (and we're still over the limit—today won't show up!) This is can be solved by removing a couple days (but remember the older they are, the smaller they usually are), subst'ing templates (messy markup = not ideal) and archiving as soon as they're closed. The thing is we shouldn't have to resort to these things. And even if we can stay below the post-expand limit, the page takes forever to load. This slows down the whole process. We need to restructure our set up. How we do that, I don't know. We could go by days, but that's not convenient. As I proposed before, what about splitting it up by types of DRs? E.g. a page for copyright-related issues, a page for mass nominations, and a page for everything else. This would be a nice separation regardless of trying to fix our current problem. Rocket000 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Commons talk:Deletion requests/Current requests#Too many includes. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Let's give the bots some time to work and we'll try to salvage this method. I don't think it is scalable however, and we may need to revisit this issue soon. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ended up getting done for technical reasons, per discussion elsewhere.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaner archives

Would anyone oppose me sending a bot through the DR archives to remove all the excess space between the requests? It's kinda messy right now. The main reason this happens is because closers don't include the line <noinclude>{{Commons:Deletion requests/box}}</noinclude> inside {{delh}} and {{delf}}. I think that line should simply be removed anyway when closed. And don't oppose this because it sounds trivial. It bothers me and RocketBot wouldn't mind the work. Rocket000 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, give'er. IMO, everything there (including !vote templates and {{delh}}/{{delf}}!) should be substed (and you can remove {{Commons:Deletion requests/box}} as it's not necessary). The point of substitution is so things in archives don't change. Also, this reduces the impact of edits to things included there. So by substing {{delh}} for example you don't bloat the job queue as much since all the ones in the archives are no longer transcluded. So yeah, go for it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. giggy (:O) 01:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Cool. I'll be sure to subst any templates while I make my way through. Still got a little work to do on perfecting my regexes, but I'll be getting to it soon. Rocket000 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If your bot uses AWB, I think template substing is a feature there. Not sure if this'll cover the box removal, but it might make your life easier if you haven't already thought of it...just sayin'! giggy (:O) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Very true. I almost forgot about that, but you still got to enter each template you want to subst. With a simple search & replace regex you can subst all templates in one step: \{\{([^\}]*)\}\} → {{subst:$1}} Well, that's a start anyway. Don't think we want to subst everything within double brackets. I think I'll be using a combination of both. Thanks for reminding me. Rocket000 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Requests

What generally happens with the old requests? e.g.Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rüm Hart.jpg is here nearly half a year in here and minimum three votes say "delete" but no one cares about this request. I mean, is there any dead line, when there has to be a decision whether stay or delete? Thanx for your answere.--217.255.95.232 12:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there? please give me an answere. Thanxx a lot!--217.255.87.18 07:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We close them when we think it's appropriate. I don't see why that work is said to be a copyvio; nobody's given any original source to show that it is a copyvio, and I don't find the claim of self-authorship to be entirely implausible, so I won't close it either. We don't work on "votes" here, we go on convincing arguments. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red_Army_recruitment_poster.jpg

Dear Collard, why would you delete a very useful for the article picture, see Bashlyk (diff) (hist) . . mb Bashlyk‎; 17:01 . . (-125) . . CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) (Removing "Red_Army_recruitment_poster.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Collard because: author died in 1946.). Is there a chance/procedure to reinstate this image? Please note that at the time of creation of the picture (ca 1918) there was no copyright in revolutionary Russia, neither was any in 1946 when the author reportedly died, and in any case no copyrigt could be claimed by any individual because everything belonged to the long defunct Stalinist regime. Barefact 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wee, way to leave a comment where I'll never see it. Says Commons:Licensing,
Russia is recognized as one of the twelve (12) legal successors of the USSR (as a federation of republics). Copyrights of works originating from other former Soviet republics may be claimed by the corresponding w:post-Soviet states too.
As such it is irrelevant that the regime is defunct; as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, current (and retroactive) Russian copyright law applies, which says that the work is still under copyright. Take this to Commons:Undeletion requests if you'd like to contest it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Www3cubed page was tagged for speedy deletion

I'm assuming it was because these were my first posts and I messed up copyright attribution. I believe I have done the needed corrections and posted an appeal[1]. Following appeal instructions I replaced a speedy delete with a simple delete and I am posting it here for the same instructed reasons. Was there actually any reason to post this here? Is my User talk page actually under threat of deletion if I don't post this explanation here? Or was posting the appeal to Commons:Undeletion_requests enough? Thanks Wayne ??? 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

Da ich jedoch keiner der angegebenen Sprache(n) nicht mächtig bin, bitte ich um gefällige Übersetzung ins DEUTSCHE und bedanke mich im Voraus als: fwj-press[e]dienst südhessen!

erledigt/done. --Zinnmann (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass nuke

What is the proper procedure for RFD-ing thousands of photographs that are 'copyvios' ? NVO (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wondering the same, there is apparently a procedure but I can't be damned to follow it to nominate these, that are all obvious copyvios, for deletion... Obviously the user just selected pd-self because it was convenient... /Grillo (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Grillo - The first step in your situation would be to explain to the user the copyright issue: he/she may simply not understand. If the uploading continues, an admin will block pretty quickly once made aware of the situation. I think all of the images can be speedy deleted as obvious copyvios.
NVO - could you give some more details, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As a general answer, you are looking for Help:Mass deletion request. But MM is right - communication first is important.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of images rule out listing of each image, notification of each uploader, etc. - a bot maybe. NVO (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Have communicated in Swedish, we'll await an answer, but I'm sceptical, since the images come from different web pages and different authors, all are marked pd-self and none of the pages the images are taken from mention free licenses... /Grillo (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs: I ran a brief audit of my own contribs and seems that at least 500 of 1920 are in vio of COM:FOP. At least the same proportion applies to the whole Category:Moscow. NVO (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A good example of how to do it is at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PHGCOM. —Giggy 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing up the archives

Due to the fact that the archives have become incredibly slow due to the massive amounts of templates and because substing them is going to give us more trouble than it's worth, starting from July 2008 I am going to give each day its own subpage and link them from the month page instead of transcluding them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Precedents re medical patient images

Hi. For Commons:Patient images I am looking for prior deletion requests concerning medical patient images. Do you recall some? Can you otherwise help me find some (rather than browsing the entire archive)?! Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missed deletion request

Commons:Deletion requests/Toulouse seems to have dropped off the list. Please can this deletion request be closed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Chris 73 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor change in the header

I've noticed a lot of requests lately that should be handled under the speedy deletion process, so I decided to be bold and add a sentence to the first paragraph instructing users on the appropriate way to handle blatant copyvios, badnames, and duplicates. Speaking from experience, it seems that the users listing speediable images here are aware of the deletion process but simply unaware there's a better way to do things, so a little education should go a long way.

Feel free to edit/remove/expand/ridicule the addition. --jonny-mt 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pipes & Drums of % UDR - Album Cover.jpg

Please delete Image:Pipes & Drums of % UDR - Album Cover.jpg and Image:5UDR_album_-_back_cover.jpg

I've uploaded these in the wrong place and apologise. The Thunderer (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{dupe}} next time.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palin

Would an administator please check this out? It seems like a deletion request has been written, but no reason has been given on the image page, and the request has not been added to the log. Thanks in advance for checking this out.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should all be sorted now. —Giggy 08:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Closed. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Deletion request

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eduardo-noriega.jpg and put it on the list, but the request doesn't appear. What's wrong? --César (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shows up fine for me; right here. Giggy (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read the guidelines - it's seven days

Commons:Deletion requests#Instructions for administrators is pretty clear: after seven days the deletion requests can be closed. I've seen increasing amounts of requests being closed well before that. People, what's the rush? We have backlogs of several months on DR, but some people think it's more important to close recent DRs early? I don't get it. OK, if it's really a blatant copyvio, or a dupe (some users start a deletion request because they don't know the other speedy templates), or the requester withdraws the DR, the request can be closed, but otherwise... I don't want to put examples here because I don't want to pinpoint people doing this, but please be reasonable. Patrícia msg 11:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes files are placed on DR when they could be speedy deleted under the speedy deletion rules. In those cases there is no need to wait a week. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tweaked the page to make the 7 day rule clearer, and done some initial copyediting. More work is needed- the page is very messy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I agree with speedy closing if it's situations that are equivalent to speedy deletion requests, but that's not what I was referring to. Thanks for the copyediting! Patrícia msg 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. Have just spent an hour or so closing what I thought were last week's DRs, but have just realized I was actually on the "Recent Requests" page, and that I've probably done exactly what PatriciaR was warning about above. It would be nice if this page could be differentiated from the older pages in some way. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps time to change this page to links instead of transclusions.
This will solve issues with transclusions as well (maybe :D)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, I actually did not see you doing that, but as I said, no pinpointing, I agree that the layout is confusing, and the the crazy amount of DRs we have, it's just impossible to look at, hehe. Mike, I'm not sure I understood your plan, but how about going rogue/bold and implementing it, so we see what comes out of it? :D Patrícia msg 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I like rouge, but I need to make sure it will not break DRBot (I don't think it will, but still...)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Mike - not sure I understand either what you have in mind, but if you think it will help, go for it. Any chance of putting a template round the page with DRs that are less than 7 days old so that the background colour is different? BTW, see also my request to Slaunger here --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

{{done}} - we now have the last 3 days transcluded, and links to the monthly logs. We can still shuffle things around, but we simply can't have that many transclusions.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done - we now have links  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of DRs by non-admins

This does happen, but quite rarely, and of course non-admins are not able to close as "delete". Should we make DRs closeable by admins only? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it implicit in the guidelines that admins are the ones closing any DR? I think it's already a (unwritten?) "rule". Closures by non-admins are irregular (even if well done). Patrícia msg 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It may be implicit. My suggestion is that we make it explicit. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Then I fully support it :). Patrícia msg 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why we need to do this - non-admin closures are tracked by DRBot, and non-admins can't actually delete anything. Are we having problems with this that I'm not aware of?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But a DR decision has to be decided by someone the community has explicitely deposited trust in to do so, that is, that has shown being capable to evaluate problems exposed on DRs. I can easily imagine this being abused in the future if it's explicitly open for non-admin closure too. Patrícia msg 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no benefit in having the position unclear, as it is now. I would like to clarify the text one way or the other. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Allowing users to keep their they feel strongly about etc can't be good (per Patrícia).
However, if a non-admin closes correctly, then there's no problem. Perhaps the page could say :
"Non-admins may close a deletion request as a keep if they have an understanding of the process, and the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it."
Fred J (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Since DRBot controls non-admin closure anyway, as Mike pointed out, I agree with this new wording. If issues arise, we can discuss making it explicitly for admin only. Patrícia msg 21:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't bother?

I asked the author of a photo to deposit it here. They said "Great, except I don't know how. Can you do it for me?" Can I do it without having to explain who they are and go through the OTRS ticket business? What if the copyright holder transfers copyright to me? Normally, this is between the author and the one who acquires the copyright; a 3rd party does not need proof. (Why does Commons seem to need proof? Am I missing something? 66.167.135.177 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you obtain the image directly from the copyright holder rather than from some internet source, then going through OTRS is generally not necessary unless there is some specific reason to suspect the image of being used illegitimately. OTRS is pretty simple though: just get an email from the author to you in which they explicitly grant permission to license the photo under the exact license you want to use (GFDL, CC-by-sa, CC-by, etc.), and forward that email to OTRS after you upload the file. It can be as simple as "Please upload photo x to Wikipedia with a CC-by-sa license, sincerely, The Author".) As for copyright transfer, that also sounds like an okay way to do it. (I'm certainly not a final authority on this.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning backlogs

What's annoying is the dr stays open or month and users just does nothing. it is just uploaders have decide to permanently leave Commons. I think after 7 days nobody votes just contact the uploader, if another 4 days no answer yet if community thinks should be deelte then delete. Deleting doesn't permanently erase stuff from the house, copy will still exist, if users still wants to use it they can ask for undeeltion.--SCFReeways 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush. We prefer to thoroughly discuss matters than to make deletions somewhat automatic. Images may be in use, etc, so it's not just a matter of "delete, it can be restored anyway". We're not going to play with people's uploads like that. Patrícia msg 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to edit the main page (no indication as to why! Perhaps the page is semilocked.), so I'm putting this here on the talk page: Template:Adminbacklog, per the suggestion "To report administrative backlogs, add Template:Adminbacklog to the backlogged page", in the header here. There's a big deletion request backlog. Any admins wanna pitch in? Here. I'm particularly eager for someone with a legal mind and patience to look at this and provide some consistency.--Elvey (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That instruction needs to be clarified; perhaps a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Adminbacklog or adding "top of" to the instruction would help... Request: could ANY admin add Template:Adminbacklog to the top of "Deletion requests" please? (I'd probably file an RFA if I had many edits here instead of mostly on en.) --Elvey (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Help! Ping!

[edit] Current date missing in the list

The current date is missing in the list, right now Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/18. Maybe this is caused by different time zones? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/19 is missing from the list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably yes - the server time is UTC. I can probably do a workaround.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It worked for a few days, but now October 23 is not in the list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Right now Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/23 and Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/24 are missing from the list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please try a purge - you may be seeing the cached page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Shift-reload in Firefox did not help (I had already tried that). There is no purge button. Adding "action=purge" to this page does not help. But if other people see current dates, the problem is not important. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see "today" and "tomorrow" listed, so... I don't know what's going on :(  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed tomorrow today. :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP votings

According to Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview it's allowed for IPs to vote. "Anyone can comment on the deletion requests posted here, and can express an opinion as to whether a particular file should be kept or deleted."
Why are IPs allowed to vote? If wouldn't have any account and want to have an image deleted, kept, undeleted (or whatever), I could use internet caffes or a friend's PC, different PCs at work, school, university (or any other place where you can find Computers) to get more votings of mine.
I would change it to as it is on COM:FP (Exactly from Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#General_rules):
2) "Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome"
3) "Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome"
4) "Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted"

add 2): Maybe "are welcome" should be changed
--D-Kuru (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion isn't a vote at all. It does not really matter how many "votes" there are for a particular outcome. What matters are good arguments, be they from logged in users or anonymous users. --rimshottalk 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot that they don't vote as they do on com:fp. I didn't remember that {{keep}} and {{vd}} are just shortcuts for that what people think.
thanks for info --D-Kuru (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy for images unlikely to have value

I have looked at the deletion policy and see that redundant or bad quality images can be deleted. But when I look through the deletion logs I do not see images being deleted for reasons like "poorly focused and composed image unlikely to be useful to any wiki project". Maybe space is not a concern here and keeping junk is easier than going through a deletion process. If so, that may be the conclusion, but otherwise, would such a ground for deletion fly? Is it worth bothering with? What about a category that is something like "Images of doubtful value"? I have tried to find discussion of this question and have found little of use but if there are dialogs I have missed, please let me know. ---KenWalker (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at COM:PS#Discussion. Non-useful and unused images can be deleted but where images are in use on a wiki they are kept: see COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project. As to why there are few deletion requests on poor-quality files, I think that is just because there are many other things here that users find more important/interesting. But do please nominate a few! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not worth the effort. The only problem with low-quality duplicates and superseded images is that they make it harder to find good images in categories. Often blur is not obvious in thumbnails. But that could be solved by moving such images to a category for junk.
Another reason for keeping obsolete images is that one may sometimes need to know what the illustrations in the history of a wikipedia file looked like. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Nor does deleting a file save space - deletions can be reversed. But, deleting stuff we don't want does discourage people from uploading similar stuff. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Ok the image is something wrong? Let's see, talk if you want to express themselves. I want to know if there is any error

[edit] Archiving of requests

Since the DRBot seems not work any more for the requests from July 2008 on (it removes the requests from the monthly DR pages but does not store them in the respective archives) and because Bryan (the author of the bot) is not active any more since the end of November 2008 I would ike to ask here, what we can do and whether somebody can or is willing to fix the DRBot (or can write a new one). --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bryan has asked for his sysop bit back temporarily, which was granted. Perhaps he can fix it, or help transfer this to some other user, or both? ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Log question

The deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RaghavendraGadagkar.jpg is still open and, although it was listed on Nov 30, 2008, it does not currently show in the log of open November cases, Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11. Could somone please clarify what is happening? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:RaghavendraGadagkar.jpg says its linked to from Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11/30 ,as well as Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. When I actually click on Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11, the last deletion discussion listed there is from November 14, with nothing after that. Also, there is one huge archival box, that captures ALL the entries at that page below File:Puziveri.jpg (but not the red link to File:Puziveri.jpg itself). Perhaps the problem is with one of the deletion discussion being archived incorrectly which caused all the entries after Nov 14 not to be shown at the Nov log page. Nsk92 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you fixed the delh/delf box, but the problem of missing inclusions from {{Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11/15}} onward is still there. The page is automatically added to:
Maybe the page is just too big. Can that be fixed? Either by making it smaller, or changing the inclusion limits? --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably a bot should do some aggressive template substitution.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old requests

Hi there, I was wondering why Commons:Deletion requests/Image:City ofinventions.jpg is taking so long to come to a close? I'm looking into becoming more active over here and am curious if there is a cutoff time for how long a discussion will remain active, or if they can go on indefinitely. Thanks. Stepshep (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They're meant to take 5 days but sometimes take months (see COM:DEL/OLD). Mike got this one. If you're a non admin and find obvious keep closes you're welcome to close them , if you'd like to help out that way. Giggy (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Very cool. Didn't know we could do that. Thanks for the help. Stepshep (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is rather a lot of backlogs. Maybe I should run for adminship. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do that, Stifle, your support is and would be appreciated. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Borrado de imagenes que contengan imagenes de personas identificables / Deleting images containing pictures of identifiable people

Según la Agencia (Española) de Protección de Datos la captación y divulgación por Internet de imagenes de una persona sin su consentimiento puede ser una infracción grave de la Ley de Protección de Datos que sería sancionada con una multa mínima de 60.000 euros. Es posible que otros paises apliquen ésta o doctrinas similares con lo cual la mera publicación en Wikipedia, o los proyectos hermanos, de fotografías de personas que puedan ser identificadas, y que por tanto pueda afectar a su privacidad, podria suponer un grave daño para estos proyectos. Deberían borrarse todas aquelles imágenes que contengan rostros humanos identificables, de la misma forma que se ha hecho con las imagenes con copyright a fin de evitar futuras reclamaciones a menos que su publicación corresponda a personas muertas con una anterioridad de unos 70 ó 100 años, y siempre que correspondan a un hecho historicamente relevante. Según El Mundo Protección de Datos decidió investigar de oficio por la mera difusión de la imagen de una persona en Internet sin su consentimiento.

Vease: Paloma Díaz Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, 5 de febrero de 2009. Onda Cero

Vease: Onda Cero

According to the agency (Spanish) Data Protection for the collection and dissemination on Internet of images of a person without their consent may be a serious breach of the Data Protection Act which would be punishable by a minimum fine of 60,000 euros. It is possible that other countries apply this or similar doctrines which the mere publication in Wikipedia, or the sister projects, photographs of people who can be identified, and thus may affect their privacy, could pose a serious harm to these projects. Should delete all those images with recognizable human faces in the same manner as was done with copyrighted images in order to avoid future claims unless your publication reflects people death with a few previously 70 or 100 years, and provided that apply to a relevant historical facts. According toEl Mundo Data Protection decided to investigate ex officio by the mere distribution of the image of a person on the Internet without their consent.

See: Article by Paloma Días Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, february 5, 2009.

See: Onda Cero

Vibria (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikimedia follows US (Florida, specifically) law.--Elvey (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Vibria, thank you for sharing your concerns. Wikimedia Commons considers personality rights and we have a policy regarding photographs of identifiable people. In case you find photographs violating this policy, please file them for deletion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help

It appears Commons:Deletion requests/File:Visuotine lietuviu enciklopedija.General Lithuanian Encyclopedia.Open.jpg was never linked to on the Month and Day deletion pages. Could someone please do this? Thanks, §hepTalk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A little problem

"This page is for discussions concerning the deletion request process itself. Please do NOT post individual deletion requests or appeals here." But the template in Category:Province of South Tyrol brings me here! --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Foroa. Pruneautalk 11:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the "nominate for deletion"-function from left toolbox

I have used this function some times but now it seems to be partially broken. For example I nominated File:Keitai housyaki.jpg but the script doesn't inform the uploader and doesn't list the request on Commons:Deletion requests--Avron (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you using a browser that blocks pop-ups? I had this problem a couple times and realized it was because of my Firefox/add-on settings. Rocket000 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my question has been answered: Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_the_.22nominate_for_deletion.22-function_from_left_toolbox --Avron (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Avron (see his message, just above from this one) is not the only person who had this problem (I had the same problem before). For that purpose I have created a help page. So please edit Commons:Deletion_requests#How_to_list_deletion_requests to insert a link to this help page with the following code :

([[Help:"Nominate for deletion" toolbox link|help]])

Rendering :

You can nominate individual media files directly by going to the image description page and clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left (help).

Teofilo (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks! --Waldir talk 11:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request needing closed

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julian Beever Mountain Dew art photo by David Shankbone.jpg has been open for 3 1/2 months. Hasn't enough time passed to close this?--207.144.237.61 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, closed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry. I don't get it.

I want to delete a photo with a bad name, so I get instructions to use a { {badname} } tag. Where do I place this tag? Sincerely, Contributions/69.110.212.87 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the image’s description page.
To link to a template without placing it on the page, you can use the {{tl}} template like this: {{tl|bad name}} (results in “{{Bad name}}”).
To sign your message, write this: ~~~~.
--AVRS (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template deletion

Where do I post a deletion request for a template? I've looked around but nothing is said anywhere. ChrisDHDR 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do it the same way as you would delete an Image. Go to Commons:Deletion requests and create a new deleteion request.
Example: For {{GFDL}} you would create the deletion request on "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL". You would add "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL" to Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/05 today. You may notify the original creator and leave a message on the village pump. Tell me on my talkpage if you need some more help.
--D-Kuru (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
An important detail: For templates you must put the deletion request tag between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, to avoid the request appearing on all pages transcluding the template. Sv1xv (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old requests

There is a backlog of deletion requests from January, February, March and April, which must be cleaned. I had a go today and cleared some requests but I would like at least some input from other users. Could you please have a look in the DRs for January and February? Sv1xv (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG

This is a deletion nomination I created using the left-hand sidebar option. It's been a long time since I edited at Commons, but it seems to me that this deletion request has malformed somehow since the only thing linking to it is file itself, so I don't see how anyone could be expected to find it to comment on it. I'm here to ask please (a) can anyone who understands what a listing is meant to look like, sort this one out manually? (b) how can I avoid future cock-ups? My internet connection tends to cut out at critical moments, could that be responsible for the nomination not forming properly? Any help appreciated :) TheGrappler (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Dealt with now, thanks to those involved. TheGrappler (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [editprotected] - Please add link to [:Category:Deletion requests <monthname>]

{{editprotected}}

At the bottom of Commons:Deletion_requests#Most_recent_deletion_requests, please add :

A thumbnail display of nominated files is available on [[:category: deletion requests {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]].

rendering :

A thumbnail display of nominated files is available on category: deletion requests November 2009.

Teofilo (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Mormegil (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This can be further improved as follows :

An alphabetical order thumbnail display of nominated files is available on [[:category: deletion requests {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]].

A chronological order list of recent changes affecting those files is available at [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Deletion requests {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]

Teofilo (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Mormegil (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The escalating backlog problem

See discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Deletion requests backlogged. Probably some technical adjustments should be made. Pressing the delete button should not be easier than putting in a {{bad name}} template. New deletion requests should show up on more watchlists (like before the overhaul referred to at the top of this page, when DRs were logged on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests). Something should be done about unlogged DR's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To make things quicker, I wrote this file rename javascript request. Teofilo (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Some DR's are more than a year old - for example Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag Córdoba Province.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That one isn't transcluded in any log page - which makes it all but impossible to add a comment to (or close). I wonder how many other DRs are not correctly transcluded...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hundreds, see category:Deletion requests. Some bot should be programmed to deal with this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Appeals process

What's the appeal process against a deletion here? I can't find it. I found an image tagged for deletion in March; the discussion said it was free of copyright, so I queried whether the tag could be removed (this was in June). It's just turned up on my watchlist that the image has been deleted. So what do I do about it? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If the image has been deleted, the normal procedure is an undeletion request. See here: Commons:Undeletion requests Sv1xv (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [editprotected] - Please update list of open requests

{{editprotected}}

Please add links to [:Category:Deletion requests/<subpage name>] where the deletion request is still open. For example

Commons:Deletion requests/Palace of Soviets has been open since 12 May 2009, and Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky has been open since 28 April 2009. I am sure there are others.

At the top of Commons:Deletion_requests#Open requests, please add :

[[:Category:Deletion requests]] - category of requests still open

[[Commons:Deletion requests/Palace of Soviets]] - open since 12 May 2009

[[Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky]] - open since 28 April 2009

-84user (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Search box

I have added some {{Search box}}es to the top of this page as a trial to see if they are useful to readers (like myself) who wish to find old discussions or requests. 84user (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination not showing in dated list

I recently nominated File:Homophobia.jpg for deletion using the page link "Nominate for deletion". The nomination page was created successfully, but about an hour later it still wasn't listed on any chronological page (at least not that I could find). I added it manually at Commons:Deletion requests/2009/10/12. Hope I did the right thing. Equazcion (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the scripts are buggy, but yeah, it's listed properly now. Just remember to notify the uploading user if you're filing the request manually. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just notified the uploader - User talk:אנדר-ויק#File:Homophobia.jpg nominated for deletion. Equazcion (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Search

{{editprotected}}

Please add the 3 search boxes at the top of the talk page to the main page.--Elvey (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This should do:

<div style="float: right;">
{{Search box|root=Commons talk:Deletion requests|search-width=30|search-button-label=Search talk archives}}
{{Search box|root=Commons:Deletion requests|search-width=27|search-button-label=Search Deletion requests}}
{{Search box|root=Commons:Undeletion requests|search-width=26|search-button-label=Search Undeletion requests}}
</div>
Hello, I've lowered the protection level, as I see no reason that regular users can't at all edit this. Feel free to perform your edit. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is there some massive backlog here?

Is there some massive backlog here? I ask because images where there has been clear consensus to delete remain up as much as 6 weeks later. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montfort Hall.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Deletion requests May 2009 for DR's that are 6 months old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] don't delete the photos

Stas is my mom's cousin and I find it great to be able to read about him and share is life with my children who are interested in their family and heritage. This is great! I cannot wait to tell Aunt Pam and Mom about finding this information!

Kim

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests"