Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 1

deletion votes?

Do we really need Commons:Deletion votes? This page seems as though it will cover the exact same purpose as the so-called deletion votes page would serve. If a consensus is not reached in the seven days that are listed here, then the discussion can be extended further by sysop intervention or by consensus of the voters. -- Grunt 18:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I do think it is good to have the possibility to go to voting when there is disagreement. However, I don't think a separate page is needed - just opening a vote on this page should be fine. - Andre Engels 22:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

copyvio

Do clear copyvios also have to be listed here, or can they be speedy deleted by sysops? Ausir 14:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would propose speeedy deletion -- Chris 73 03:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say it depends on if there is any chance of getting permission. If we think asking will work then imo this should be tried before any deletion attempt. If its a clear copyvio from a site we think is unlikely to give permission then speedy it. maybe we need an equivilent to w:WP:PUI Plugwash 04:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion rules

The section on deletion rules seems to be too long and complicated. I rewrote them to simplify the process. Basically, the image/category.article is listed here for 7 days, and deleted if there is a consensus or cause for deletion. I took the liberty to remove a large section of discussion guidelines and extension rules, which were very complex and also widely ignored. Now the page reads much simpler. I also removed references to non-existing pages as cleanup and undelete. We can add the refs again if the pages exist. For now, I would try to use these simplifed rules unless there are problems that can't be solved usin these simple rules. Discussion about this is very welcome -- Chris 73 03:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Far better now in my opinion. Thx. villy 07:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Multilingual "Please add copyright tag..."

It might be useful to translate such a message into, well, as many as would be practical. They'd come in handy for posting on the Talk page of editors who haven't declared their languages. A-giâu 07:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reorganisation of sorts

In order to keep the page as tidy as possible, I have reorganised it in day-sections so that admins can easily know whether the 7 day period has been reached or not. Hope you are OK with that.

On the archiving of deletions, I would argue that the deletion logs are enough and we don't need to copy/paste everytime we do a deletion, pointing out what has been done with the request in the summary should be way enough. I'd suggest we just archive deletions (or non-deletions for that matter) that actually turn into a debate. What do you think ? notafish }<';> 13:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. The archive is already getting a bit crowded, and I was thinking about starting the next archive soon. -- Chris 73 23:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notifying the uploader

How about notifying the uploader before deleting the image? For example Image:Anime_Girl_Icon_2.png and Image:Anime_Girl_Icon_1.png were apparently deleted. I got a message at my page on English Wikipedia that they were deleted for being fair use, which is nonsense, because they were CC (a license valid for commons, don't recall which one in particular). I am pretty sure that that was clearly noted on the image page. And now instead of just saying "Are you blind? Look at the license tag!" I need to find out who deleted them, explain why that was wrong, upload the images again, reenter the descriptions and check that no links to the images were already deleted by overzealous users.

Interestingly, I don't even see these images on Commons:Deletion requests.Paranoid 21:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. I've added that to the instructions. Dbenbenn 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that is very important. silsor 21:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK Paranoid, I found the deletion requests on Archive #2. silsor 21:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New page?

A note at the top of the instructions reads "The following guidelines will be moved to a separate page after this one has been in operation for a while." This page seems to be functioning quite well enough, and I see no need for another one, so can this sentence safely be removed? — Dan | Talk 18:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the above discussion, I've removed the sentence; feel free to re-insert it if I've misunderstood its purpose. — Dan | Talk 20:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed instructions for admins

I propose to add an "Instructions for admins" section to this page:

• If there are no objections to deletion, or the consensus is to delete the image:
  1. Fix any pages that use the image.
  2. Check that the uploader was notified of the image's imminent deletion.
  3. Use check-usage to see whether any other Wikimedia projects use the image. Consider notifying the projects that use the image.
• If the image is not to be deleted:
  1. Remove the {{Deletion request}} from the image description page, and
  2. Add a note about the deletion nomination to the talk page.

Is it possible to known what wikipedias or other mediawiki projects are using a image in Commons? --Sanbec 08:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not easilly no. There is no link between commons and other wikis on the database level only on the filesystem level. The only way to find out is to check all the wikis individually. Plugwash 14:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Commons:Village pump has someone presented an external bot that can do this hand analysis half automatically. Don't know how mature this bot is. Arnomane 14:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is correct. I presume that you mean RCBot, which is currently able to check all 200 Wikipedia languages. However, at the moment his purpose is to rename files, but he could be adapted to do just what you asked. — Richie 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can vote for this bug at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1394. silsor 16:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About uploading images to a Wikipedia before deletion on Commons. I wouldn't upload a copyviolation or an image without a credible source. I don't want to take the legal responsibility. Also, in order to upload to a Wikipedia I need a user account, and I'm not comfortable with getting accounts on Wikipedias where I don't understand the language. Thuresson 02:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I've updated the proposed instructions. One thing I've noticed lately is that for failed nominations, there's no link to where the discussion occurred, which can be terribly annoying. Dbenbenn 00:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Can the use of http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/ now be included in the deletion protocol? --Walter 21:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Untagged images

Please have a look at that list, it contains more than 3000 images that have no copyright info. Please link the list where you see fit, and try to find people that can help to clean this up. Thank you. -- Duesentrieb 12:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Commons:Untagged images

Karnataka

Karnataka

There are no pictures on it. Only a WP stub. -- norro 10:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, someone's deleted the image on it saying there's no flag for states in India which is incorrect. Each state has its cultural flag though not necessarily a military flag. I'm undeleting the page and restoring the image.

Checking use before deleting

The images Image:West Wing of the Riksdag from Vasabron.jpg, Image:Chamber of the Riksdag.jpg and Image:Helgeandsholmen and the Riksdag.jpg were recently deleted despite being used on the English Wikipedia. It would have been much better to check if the images were used by any projects before deleting them, so that they could be relocated there. The missing image messages on Wikipedia are really annoying, and uploading images and writing information about them from scratch is tedious enough that I won't do it again. I deserve blame for not checking my talk page on commons regularly, though (and not being aware that non-commercial use only images are not allowed). - Fredrik 17:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's not much to add. You uploaded images that do not have a free license, you were notified that they were listed at "Deletion requests" and you did not act on this information (and any action on your part wouldn't have changed the fact that the images were for NC use only). It's not possible to check 200+ wikipedias if they use a particular image but you could have left a note on the image description pages, e.g. [[en:Image:West Wing of the Riksdag from Vasabron.jpg]]. Thuresson 01:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You could easily have checked the English Wikipedia, for which I suspect most Commons images with English file names and English descriptions are uploaded. For the record, I've seen images disappear like this more than once on en:. Fredrik 13:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, non-commercial only images are not allowed at English Wikipedia as well now. Ausir 08:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There is an external tool check-usage, initiated and operated by wikipedians, to check the usage of pictures in many different wikipedias. Useful before deleting and interesting how commons-images are spread around wikipedia. -- Arcturus 08:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Lost pictures?

How can i go about finding what happened to a picture that was once on Commons but has disappeared? Image:Vaseline Glasses.jpg did work once, and now it's nowhere to be found. I can't find it listed in the Deletion Requests archive, and there's nothing at Image_talk:Vaseline Glasses.jpg. - w:User:KeithTyler 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at the deletion log (see here), it was deleted in december because at the time Stock.xchng photos were not allowed. The current policy towards them can be found out Commons:Stock.xchng images and the image in question is still at http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=193426 -- Joolz 21:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the photographer is the one who added them, but I can't confirm. Is there any way I can request an admin look at the undelete view? - 67.51.210.122 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I did look at the undelete view :) The uploader was Chris 73, and the image was photographed by "andres_ol". You can't undelete an image, but if the copyright conditions are compatible with the commons (see the Stock.xchng page and the image page itself on stock.xchng to see) you can re-upload it. -- Joolz 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

closed debates

I've created two templates, {{DELheader}} to be subst'd above the section header of closed votes, and {{DELfooter}} to go under the closed votes to mark them out as closed. basically because it makes it easier to see which discussions are over and which are still on, and it discourages people from trying to vote on something which has been closed. -- Joolz 15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Links

A suggestion. An image in Wikipedia (namely, "Hitler in Color") has been requested for deletion. I cannot find it mentioned in this article, though the "Proposal for Deletion" links here. Is it possible to have a better link (particulary to the specific area) so that votes can be made? --Rt66lt 01:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• It was nominated along with a whole batch of others - see here: Commons:Deletion_requests#Unknown_license_25 (I found this very quickly by searching with the 'find' function on my browser). Most of the time the link to the image debate is correct, when it's done in batches though it will sometimes point to the wrong place, the alternative of not being able to batch-nominate is much worse in my opinion because there would be too many. -- Joolz 01:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Why delete our pages? (newbie)

I am new to wikimedia, so please excuse my ignorances. My friend and I are planning a trip around the world and, as she is in Poland, and I in the US, we wanted to share information on a wiki site and we chose this one. We assumed the information about travel, entry visas and safety would be of use to others.

On September 24th, EugeneZelenko listed our page (Worldtravel2006) on --Commons:Deletion requests-- with this comment: "Articles are not for Commons. Images luck (sic, s/b lack?) author/source/license information." The last part is easy to understand, and just now, I added author/source/license information to each of the images, in the correct format I hope!

I am unclear on the first reason for this deletion request: "Articles are not for Commons." The NAMESPACE for this article is 'blank' which means that it is in the 'main' namespace. Why does EugeneZelenko say it is in the 'Commons' and how to do we move it to an appropriate space?

Any information on how to keep our pages from moving to another wiki would be great, since we love wikimedia!!! -- Stav 24 Sept 205

Well, first of all, Wikimedia is a foundation that runs several projects, the most popular of which is Wikipedia. Different projects have different purposes and different policies about what belongs there and what not. Namespaces are sections within a project, to separate "main" content (the blank namespace) from user pages, policy pages, etc.

This project here is Wikimedia Commons, or just Commons for short - have a look at the FAQ. Its purpose is to build a library of free media (images mostly, but also sound, video, etc). Textual content is wanted on the commons only in so far as absolutely neccessary to organise and describe the media files. So - your images are welcome here (if they are under a free license), and once here, they can be used in any Wikimeda project, like Wikipedia (being a central store for media is the purpose of the commons).

Worldtravel2006 is not suitable for the commons - the best place for that would probably be WikiTravel, a wiki specializing in travel and tourism. Note that WikiTravel is not a WikiMedia project (i.e. it can't use images directly form the commons, etc) - but it uses the same software (MediaWiki) and many of the people there are also aktive in Wikipedia and/or the commons.

Additional information about the individual places would surly be welcome in the Wikipedia-Articles about those places - but please keep it short and dry - personal accounts and essays do not belong into an encyclopedia. You may also awant to have a look at [1] (which is a Wikimedia project) - if you want to go full scale, and write a book about your experiences, that may be welcome there - just try to get in touch with people there.

If you want to have your own wiki, in which you can do whatever, without having to deal with all the software and server fuzz, have a look at an wiki-hosting-service like WikiCities.

Regards -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article can be kept in the User namespace, just like any other personal subpage. Let's not bite the newcomers, please. dbenbenn | talk 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, ok, you'r right - it would be OK as a subpage of his user page, in the current form. But I still think WikiTravle would be the better place - while I still invite Stev to upload his trevel fotos here. A page in the user namespace is ok for "here is some stuff i'm doing", but not for "im running my personal project here" - so if this stuff grows, and/or more people get involved, it should be moved to a place where it fits into the "main content" - also in his interrest, because there, he'll find more people interrested in what he's doing.

I in no way want to bite him;) I was just trying to explain, because he seems to be confused about what wikimedia is, and how it is different from the commons. If Stev decides to put his pictures here, I welcome them, as long as they are free - and am happy that we have a new contributor. This holds no matter if he takes his pages to WikiTravel or not. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

!Thanks for all the GREAT input/feedback, folks: i am happy to be using this great wiki-software! I have (at least tried to) move my pages from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Worldtravel2006 to User:Stav/WorldTravel2006; and, i will continue to read the faq and get our stuff in the right places in the days to come. it is good to hear from actual humans! --Stav 17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Path-katrina.png

Did anyone check the useage of this image from the US Gov before deleting it? http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/check-usage.php?saved=73eZiWo8Uz http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Mandatory_evacuation_declared_in_New_Orleans%2C_US - Amgine 16:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see you fixing up that page (I've done it)... wangi 08:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:TYTalimTrack.jpg

Can't find the entry on this one. I have some info that might be helpful to the discussion but I can't find it. Can someone tell me exactly where it its? Thanks.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 01:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Weather maps

I only took a cursory look, and I know that the whole point of Commons is to have lots of nice images...but it seems to me that Category:Weather maps just might contain about 80,240,027,209,203 useless images. What does everyone think? ¦ Reisio 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump archive-15#WeatherBot : NOT the right way wangi 13:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No more logo deletion

Please stop deleting Wikimedia logos. These logos are not redundant, and appear in places such as the Static Wikipedia where it is not possible for a non-developer to fix the page. The continued removal of these on grounds that they are redundant is causing huge problems across all projects. There is no need for these to be deleted. See the meta logo on [2] for example. Angela 06:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Unused redundant logos, just like any other unused redundant images, should be deleted. What does the static Wikipedia, which is simply a mirror of Wikipedia at a certain date, have to do with that? User:dbenbenn 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Watto: why removal?

Someone has removed Image:Watto-Zanaq.png. I cannot find any reason, I cannot find the request in the archives. Before I upload it again, I'd like to know the reason for removal. Zanaq 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Use the log: Special:Log, in particular: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AWatto-Zanaq.png Thanks/wangi 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is the page I was looking for. Got any idea why it is a "clear" copyvio? Zanaq 12:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than what Ananda said no, sorry. I never saw the image, or know what it is anyway. Personally from your description I think the image would be fine - but no doubt there are derivative work concerns etc... Thanks/wangi 12:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your anwers. I am mainly "enraged" because it appears the deletion procedure was not followed properly. (by the way: The image is drafted in the same style as Image:Jarjar-Zanaq.png). Zanaq 12:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have re-uploaded the image, and will notify the "offending" user. thank you again. Zanaq 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The memo...

...the one dictating the use of annoying colorful images (even to the point of altering others' text)...did I miss it?

People should be reading comments, not thinking "Ooooh, look at all the blue, it must be good and should be kept!" or "Gosh, look at all the red Xes, this one is bad for sure!" - and altering other peoples' displayed text is rarely a good idea, regardless of the intention. ¦ Reisio 04:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a user contribution forum, so we are all free to make changes. Are you insinuating I'm trying to affect votes with color? I specifically did not use red and green for that very reason.

I was, however, following established patterns like they were doing at Commons:Featured picture candidates. I made it Orange so that it isn't red, with specific intent. Blue, in spite of your assertion, doesn't signify "good". Maybe you should take a look at it again. Why don't you go there and complain?

Why do you have to be such an ass about it?

I reversed that one change you point out. My mistake. I changed another user to the template with that user's permission.

Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The specific hue is immaterial - the colors (1) will become associated with something and (2) are distractingly distinct to everything else on the page (& if it really bothers you, you should know that not all gamma configurations [or mental perceptions or visual acuities, etc., for that matter] are exactly the same - and one popular dictionary definition of orange is "reddish yellow"). '"blue skies," referring to sunny weather, implies cheerfulness' [3] [4] [5]

Why don't I complain at Commons:Featured picture candidates? Because there it's decided whether or not an image's page gets a purple template added to it - here it's decided whether media is deleted or kept.

This is just text, you attribute your own emotion to it. ¦ Reisio 05:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new deletion guidelines

Please comment at Commons:Village_pump/Policy_proposal:No_deletion_of_improved_versions_of_images#Let.27s_try_this:_new_stricter_deletion_guidelines. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem images

I don't know where to put this, so I'm putting this here. User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) uploads is from EN, and has been uploading images here. This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images, tagging them as pd-old, and refusing to provide sources for his images (and sometimes providing false information about his sources). Some have been deleted on en, I expect more will be. As for the images he's uploaded here, at least one is by an artist who created works as recently as the 1950s, others he's uploaded are of a similar style. I can only think that his uploading them here is yet another attempt to avoid their deletion. MattKingston 18:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All his uploads on Commons so far seem OK to me. / Fred Chess 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hint at deletion

Although I delete a lot of images, I check every one and remove them from articles in their native language (if applicable) utlizing User:Pfctdayelise/Translations. So for those who wish to do the task of deleting, don't forget that (and that is what takes the time). / Fred Chess 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

detection of use don't work with categories

Hello, in the standard info box you get with a deleted category, you are advised to check for uses of the deleted cat. This does not work. The generated link searches for Image:* and not for the category. I hope this is the right place to put this report, thanks. -- Ayacop 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

appearance of Template:Deletion request

At the moment, the Template looks like that:

This page or file has been requested since {{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{year}}} for deletion. See Deletion requests for discussion. When applying this tag please list it as well on Commons:Deletion requests and notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|Image:Deletion requests/Archive 1}} ~~~~ . Administrators: Consider orphaning this file on all Wikimedia projects before deleting. Deletion guidelines in: العربية   asturianu   беларуская (тарашкевіца)   brezhoneg   català   čeština   dansk   Deutsch   English   Esperanto   suomi   français   español   Alemannisch   magyar   Bahasa Indonesia   italiano   日本語   한국어   मराठी   polski   português   русский   Türkçe   中文   +/−

Reason for deletion request: Because I want it!

I'd propose to put the reason inside the box:

	This page or file has been requested since {{{day}}} {{{month}}} {{{year}}} for deletion. See Deletion requests for discussion. When applying this tag please list it as well on Commons:Deletion requests and notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|Image:Deletion requests/Archive 1}} ~~~~ . Administrators: Consider orphaning this file on all Wikimedia projects before deleting. Deletion guidelines in: العربية   asturianu   беларуская (тарашкевіца)   brezhoneg   català   čeština   dansk   Deutsch   English   Esperanto   suomi   français   español   Alemannisch   magyar   Bahasa Indonesia   italiano   日本語   한국어   मराठी   polski   português   русский   Türkçe   中文   +/−
Reason for deletion request: Because I want it!

--MarianSigler {bla} 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is better proposed at template_talk:delete / Fred Chess 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

delete template

On other wikis, using the delete template lists something for speedy delete. The template takes one argument to be used as an explanation. See www.wikibooks.org for example.

Here, that doesn't work. It should work, for compatibility. I listed something that way ages ago. It still isn't gone.

I now see that there might be a speedydelete template. That, besides being wordy, isn't what other wikis use. It's not good to make users remember a different template name for each wiki.

AlbertCahalan 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong category placement

In all due respect to accuracy I just found one of my PD photos[6] uploaded (not by me) into in How does one delete it from the wrong category[7] and put it where it should be, in Ferris wheels in Canada? WayneRay 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Looks likee [User:Shimgray]] fixed it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How to organise COM:DR (or rather Template:Deletion requests)

The way I currently see the deletion procedure on this pace is as follows:

• A user nominates an item for deletion
• Discussion takes place and (hopefully) consensus is reached on the item
• Admin acts based on community consensus and closes the discussion for the item by adding top and bottom templates
• The item's discussion is moved to archive by any user

My guess is that above procedure takes a lot of admin effort.

I've seen deletion of pages handled differently on for example nl:wp. There the deletion request pages consists primarily of templates, one for each day. As soon as a day is dealt with, the link is archived. I propose to start using the same procedure here, to make the above process run without moving around a lot of content. It would mean that each day a template should be added to Commons:Deletion requests, making it look like below:
{{Commons:Deletion requests/20060623}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/20060624}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/20060625}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/20060626}}

The new procedure would look like this:

• Each day a 'day template' is created
• A user nominates an item for deletion on the day template
• Discussion takes place and (hopefully) consensus is reached on the item
• Admin acts based on community consensus and closes the discussion for the item by adding top and bottom templates
• Once a day has been dealt with, the link to the day template is moved to archive by any user

Any thoughts on if this would improve maintenance on this page? Siebrand 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, but then a day is left on the page until all entries on that day have been delt with? Deletions take longer on Commons because people aren't notified at the right place, someone sends a permission note and ask us to wait, etc, and in case of deletion the image has to be removed from lots of places (so images shouldn't be wrongly deleted)./ Fred Chess 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this page is quite long already, this proposal must be done together with a reform on how deletion requests are made. One suggestion is to split the page for different kinds of requests, such as copyright violations, duplicates, etc. Another suggestion is to split it in different language sections, for starters one English, one German and one Spanish. / Fred Chess 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the reasoning behind having multiple sections or languages? IMO that just scatters knowlegde all around, and 'us' ending up with having no overview at all. Sadly, it appears to be a matter of admin time, isn't it? Siebrand 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not primarily. Primarily it is a matter of page size. / Fred Chess 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, page size is the problem, because page size makes this page discouraging to look at. I would prefer not to split by language...maybe split by type of request but people already put so many wrong things here... to Siebrand, yeah I worry about the "day" thing -- lots of requests here take longer than 7 days to resolve. They shouldn't hold up all the other nominations on that day. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is now taking place on several places at once (see COM:VP, see also Template talk:Deletion requests. NielsF 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please continue the debate in one location, Template talk:Deletion requests. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about an image

What exactly is the policy on photos of packages like the "famous" pringles example? A while back I took this photo to replace a unfree image on enwiki, but it has later ocured to me that my photo might be just as bad... or is it? I seem to recall the pringle one comping up in a couple of copyright discussions, but it's still there. So what is is, are such photos ok, or should I have it deleted? --Sherool 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This Site is not useful

It is nearly impossible to find a particular Template. The Links from the Pictures don't lead to the correct thread. I have searched one for 10 minutes. I think I can use my time better. By--WerWil 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Superseded

Many deletion requests are for superseded images. What is the motivation for deleting such images? I can think of some good and some not so good reasons:

• To save disk space. But deleted images are also stored somewhere.
• So that the images are not used on the Wikimedia projects. But why can't the projects decide for themselves which images they want to use?
• To make it easier to search for images on Commons. It is easier to find a needle in a smaller hay stack.
• To make sure that the license is not a problem. Deleted images can not have a incorrect license tag.

I think the third of those reasons is the most convincing. Are there other reasons for deleting the images? and are there any reasons for keeping them? /82.212.68.183 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The main reason, I believe, is the basic premise that images should be useful to a Wikimedia project. This should correspond to your point no #2. Why would the projects want to use an inferior image? But in the case of photographs or other artwork (such as flags) that can look in different ways, "superseded" is not applicable, and such images should not be deleted.

Fred Chess 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Uneditable

The page is nearly uneditable, because it has about 500 kByte and to much content, even with a quick computer. It woudt be better to split up into separate pages for each day. That will easyfy editing and deciding over the old requests. Its also usefull, to create a separate page for superseded images. Why not doing that ? Augiasstallputzer 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We should use a system similar to that on the English Wikipedia, where deletion requests are all put on their own subpages. Perhaps I will try an migrate this page over. ~MDD4696 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see template talk:deletion requests. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note of "vote", again

To nominate an image and then adding

•  Delete / [signature]

is unuseful, because, again, images are not deleted through a ballot. This practice will just cludder up the page.

Fred Chess 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Transclusions?

This page is ginormaous. Could we just switch to the format used at Wikipedia - creating separate pages for each day, and transcluding them all onto one big page? It owuld make it much faster and easier to brwoser certain days and the suck. Hbdragon88 04:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

we know its a mess major reform is in the pipeline. See Template talk:Deletion requests#Refactoring.--Nilfanion 10:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding that today {{Deletion requests}} is not transcluding properly. Size? Morven 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Deletion requests#Refactoring. It got changed. What do you mean by "properly"? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's the size. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple images how-to

"Multiple images that are related don't need to be listed one-by-one." How do I do it then? -Samulili 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest just write in a phrase that summarises why they should be treated as a group, eg. "Screenshots from BBC" or something. Or maybe "Image:Foo + others". Hm... well try that and see how it goes. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)