Commons talk:Deletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

[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)
•  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.

• One link for the current (less than one week old) DRs
• More links to the transclusion pages for the past x months (ie all the way back to the oldest DR we have open) - one month per page as we currently do. In essence, this will be a merge of Commons:Deletion requests and Commons:Deletion requests/Older Discussions.

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)

[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)