Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could someone help me clean up?

I have nominated several images of Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, but I seem to have done something wrong submitting the entry and creating the corresponding sub page. __meco 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mao-quote.jpg is now gone.
Image:Little Red Book 1.JPG is now gone.
Image:Little Red Book 2.JPG is now gone.
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the deletion request of November 18 - November 25

At first look it seems nice to keep the deletion requests list short, but ist looks as if some days are completely missing. The actual list begins at November 26. The older discussions end at November 17. Can anything be done to help to reduce the older list? --Lyzzy 15:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there?

I've noticed that files tagged for speedy deletion can sit for weeks in the Category:Copyright violation without any action taken. Are there any active administrators here? /Dewil 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not easy to deal with these when the toolserver isn't working. Alphax (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Why so difficult ??

This deletion procedure is completely unusable. Much too difficult. -- Fragwürdig 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Finde ich auch. Ich bin ganz neu hier und habe teilweise auch noch etwas Probleme mit dem Stellen von Löschanträgen. --217.224.104.63 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Invalid deletion request

I lately see quite often that images are listed here without the uploader being notified. I find this rather incivil, and it also doesn't give the uploader the chance to respond. I therefore propose that for all non-obvious deletion requests, that the deletion request is invalid until the uploader has been left a message on his talk page or is otherwise aware of the deletion request. I thus propose that non-obvious deletion requests are only to be closed 7 days after notification instead of after listing. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Kjetil_r 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur. This was a personal policy as well. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. any IP 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
support, if notification on the user's talk page on commons is considered sufficient. Also, when listing multiple images, notification can should be allowed to be done en-gross for each user effected. Also, i would suggest to call a deletion request without notification "suspended", not "invalid". -- Duesentrieb(?!) 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
support and like bastique it has been my personal policy. Except for cases where it is obviously not necessary. / Fred Chess 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
support but suspended does sound better./Lokal_Profil 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Support, but you must specify a deadline, because a deletion request cannot remain indefinitly suspended. --Juiced lemon 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, should be the norm. le Korrigan bla 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support : Oxam Hartog 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose because we already have enough trouble closing nominations on time. Of course the uploader should be notified, and regulars should be told in the strongest possible terms that they have to do this. But making the nomination process invalid for newbies if they don't get every step right is silly, especially given that images can easily be undeleted, and we have a undeletion procedure now. If everyone who votes Support here feels like going around checking that every uploader has been notified, and warning those nominators who missed this step, go ahead and do that, you don't need a policy change to do that. But I'll only support changes to deletion policy that make it easier, not harder, to follow. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Duesentrieb - i.e. a nomination is not invalid if the uploader is not notified, it is just incomplete. The nomination will stand, but the clock doesn't start ticking until the uploader is notified on their Commons talk page. Thryduulf 08:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --G.dallorto 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Aren't we going to have someday a Mediawiki feature enabling a "you have a new message on your Commons' talk page" warning to be sent on one's chosen Wikipedia ? Teofilo 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the changes: At earliest seven days, in reality 14-30 days, an administrator will consider the discussion and determine to At earliest seven days after the uploader has been notified, in reality 14-30 days, an administrator will consider the discussion and determine

and change Instructions for administrators: In general, requests can be closed after seven days. If it is an obvious copyright violations, it can be closed earlier. to In general, requests can be closed after seven days. Please check whether the uploader has been notified of the deletion request. If this is not the case, and the deletion is not uncontroversial, leave the uploader a notice on their talk page and leave the request open for seven more days. If it is an obvious copyright violations, it can be closed earlier.

In the appeal section: If your image was deleted without your notification, please contact the closing admin, who will then consider reopening the deletion request to give you the opportunity to voice your opinion. If the closing administrator feels that the image was obvious in contradiction with Commons policy, they are free to leave the image deleted.

-- Bryan (talk to me) 10:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We should add "until the uploader has been left a message on his talk page (or an email)... the preceding unsigned comment is by Patricia.fidi (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really think this falls under common sense and perhaps best to stay as an unwritten rule so as to avoid people tricking the system. Some nominators will just claim "obvious deletion" on whatever the nominated image is. --Cat out 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to tell here, but this change is obsoleted by BryanBot -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BryanBot was then obsoleted by DRBot per this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not deleted yet?

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zuneetlogo.jpg - This page was nominated by me on Jan. 3. Two others supported and requested speedy deletion. But it seems to be hanging around far longer than anything that would have been deleted normally. Did it just fall through the cracks? Rmhermen 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a backlog of almost four months so please be patient. --ALE! ¿…? 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred Chess 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

request that deletion tag be removed

The above photo was taken on a public city street and thus does not warrant deletion for several reasons clearly defined under US law.

The photo is art and protected by United States law. Consent of subjects is not required to publish artistic photos, so long as they are not used commercially or depicted in the nude. The subjects are neither nude or engaged in sexual activity.

See case: [| Nussenzweig v. diCorcia]

Individual moral biases do not constitute grounds for removing an artistic, non-commercial image from wikipedia.

There is a incoherence in our position. If consent of subject is not required so long as pic not used commercially then this pic have to be deleted speedy because all material uploaded on commons can be re-used including commercial use and derivation. I transfert this image in deletion request page. Oxam Hartog 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several hundred pictures on wikimedia depicting people without their written consent. Mine is no different. If you delete my picture you are legally obligated to delete all images on wikicommons depicting a human being that did not give his/her permission to publish the image on wikicommons. Your argument leads down a slippery slope.

Please all discussions on this case on page Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prostitute-from-lviv-ukraine-speaks-with-her-pimp-highres.jpg. Oxam Hartog 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The image does not violate a single rule of wikicommons "deletion guidelines". Wikicommons is governed by set guidelines not the moral opinions of individual users.
    • This is NOT the right place for this request. --Cat out 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:8182590_98f030bc01_o.jpg

Please explain why my deletion request was removed and cannot be found in archives. Lcarsdata 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still there. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering for the longest time why there are still outstanding requests from over two months ago. Hbdragon88 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We are still having a backlog up to October... We are having more deletion request than the few admins that do them can handle :( -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Briefs!!!!

Please see here: Briefs!!!!. This page was deleted some time last year, and was protected because of recurring vandalism. However, as it has no category, it shows up on the list with "Uncategorised pages". Can someone either delete this page fully (and see what happens) or give it a category like "deleted pages" or something similar? Thanks. Deadstar 12:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Added on Commons:Protected against recreation. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Instruction is wrong

Step II seems to be - eh, bad...--[[User:Conspiration|Conspi<sup>[[User talk:Conspiration|ration]]</sup>]] 10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, it is the deletion template that is complicated, not the instruction here. --Conspiration 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Future undeletion

Pictures that have been deleted only because of copyright will one day come out of copyright. Is there any plan to undelete them? Should there be? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One day... most images that are deleted as copyvios will only be in PD in 70 years or more. I have not yet seen cases where images of which the author died in 1937 were deleted, but if this is the case, you can of course request undeleteion next year. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but in 70 years, I'm not going to be around to request undeletion. Nor do I think that anyone is going to want to look through all the deleted photos to work out what is and isn't worth undeleting. But if we had a 'delete for 70 years' button, or some easy way of tagging this stuff, then in 70 years time, or whenever, these images will be easy to recover. I guess if things always get tagged as copyvio before being deleted, recovery could be automatic, but is that the case? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:N784AS Spirit of Disneyland at ONT gate 206.JPG

Sorry for my ignorance about the commons deletion procedures, but I got a ping on the Norwegian Wikipedia article on Alaska Airlines that this image was proposed for deletion. The reason given was "Aircraft in special livery are hard to find", which I don't understand, and which seems like a very odd reason to delete. The only reason I can find remotely plausible, apart from the image being lifted off another website (which I can't see it is), is that the billboard advert on the plane is in some way copyrighted. What to do? 129.177.61.44 09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (aka Sjakkalle on en: and no: Wikipedias) 129.177.61.44 09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the incomplete deletion request. / Fred Chess 11:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably more deletion requests coming in

I added the "Nominate for Deletion" to the toolbar per default to all users (on image pages), so it is now a lot simpler to nominate images. This will probably reflect itself on this page. If it turns out that it isn't workable, we'll have to figure out a solution...

Fred Chess 22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Incomplete deletion requests

Hello!

I just browsed into Category:Incomplete deletion requests today and was shocked by the hundreds of incomplete deletion requests.

I have some questions and suggestions:

  • Is there somebody working on these? Can we build a little "task force" working on these requests? Are there any volunteers?
  • Can we split this category in "real" incomplete requests (no deletion request subpage, not listed in any month, etc.) and in those where on the description page the second argument of the template {{delete|reason}} (the reason) is not given? This would make a little bit easier.

Please comment on that. --ALE! ¿…? 09:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, this is a problem, and people should help to reduce the backlog. I have done some of that myself in the past week or so. I suggest creating the following subcategories (members of this category via SUBCATEGORYNAME without the colon, based on the existence of the firstname template on the nominated page), and then having a bot move the residents of this category into the subcategories.
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Badname
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Copyvio
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Delete - no reason
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Delete - no subpage
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Delete - no log entry
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Duplicate
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/No license
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/No source since
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Speedy
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Speedydelete
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Superseded
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/SupersededPNG
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/SupersededSVG
  • Category:Incomplete deletion requests/Unclear reason
Of course, our documentation would have to be updated to reflect such a change. I'd do it if I had sufficient time and a bot with such a capability; alas, I have neither at present.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am on work to clean up this category, too. --GeorgHH 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
ALE and Jeff, I don't really understand either of your suggestions... can you both explain a bit more?
I deleted some today. There are around 1700-1900 total. I deleted all the easy ones :) so now they are mostly images. So far are lot were ones that should have been {{speedy}}. Now we'll see what the images are like. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just struggled through 600+ duplicates in the past few weeks. Up for a new project. I'll follow this page a bit more to pick up on the most efficient process. Siebrand 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to ALE's "Can we split this category" with a way a bot could make the task of dealing with "Incomplete deletion requests" somewhat easier.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Did this go anywhere? It would be good to do anything that would reduce this huge category. --MichaelMaggs 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Clothing and Adornments

I just found all these images in this category Category:Clothing and Adornments. IMO clearly copyright vio's despite the tag that the user put on them. The images do not look older than 50 years to me but rather from a website of a museum probably. Any comments? Gryffindor 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The images have no information who the author is/was and when they were first published. {{PD-China}} is sure wrong, i dont believe that this images was first published more than 50 years ago. So they have to be deleted if User:Highshines cant give correct information. --GeorgHH 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged them as missing source information. They'll be deleted in a week unless information about the source is provided. LX (talk, contribs) 23:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A propossal for the deletion process

Hi, while I was watching Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests, and I tried to edit one debate, didn't found the edit link, so I propose to use == image == to the debate subpages, thanks --Andersmusician $ 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm forget it the edit link isn't show just because the page is protected, I'm now just looking at Commons:Deletion requests --Andersmusician $ 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

About the 'V.part of the process

it says:

Check the file usage

For the sake of smooth process, please help to update the link. Check for Wikimedia projects that use this item. If there are links, remove or (if possible) replace with a superior item.

now my cocern: why deleting/replacing links on wikimedia projects and not notifying user, talkpages instead? --Andersmusician $ 05:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Because step IV is Notify the uploader with {{idw}} tag? (Image deletion warning) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's only notification of the uploader on Commons, not notifying users and talk pages on other projects.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If a person were to follow step V. robotically — that is, "remove or (if possible) replace with a superior item" — the image would be orphaned before (or at least during) the discussion of whether or not it should be deleted at all. I think this step needs some clarification, at least. It's not part of "Listing "Deletion Requests" of a page or file", but more like what responsible users and/or admins should do after it is decided a file is to be deleted. ¦ Reisio 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Is there a page where one can request deletion of miscellaneous content such as user pages? (equivalent of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion) I want to request deletion of User:PhoenicianParty -- it's clearly a spam page. The user has not made any contributions, other than uploading logos of his/her party and creating the user page which hosts an advertisement for the party. Wikimedia servers are not free web hosting services. Utcursch 10:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope the tags I added will have some effect shortly.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As the name might suggest, Commons:Deletion requests isn't reserved for images or media files, but can be used for other content as well. Some of the templates involved in the process might give the wrong impression, and should probably be adjusted, though, but oh well. LX (talk, contribs) 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Open cases of June

I have made it wrong once so this time I use this discussion page: Since there are quite a lot deletion requests of June not solved yet, when will it be done? --32X 09:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That might take some time. We are backlogged up to March. Obvious ones are likely to be closed before the end of July, but more complex cases, or cases where nobody has commented, might still be open in September... -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of posters

I've noticed that sometimes a user takes pictures of posters, billboards, etc., and declares that the images are GFDL-self or some such thing. But I don't think that taking a picture of a poster eliminates the copyright on the original. Examples from one user are: Image:Evaristti.jpg, Image:Hizbullahmartyrs.jpg, Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg, Image:PermanentRevolution.jpg. Note that I have no interest in listing these for deletion because your process is too complicated. Burstwings 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to close

Deletion requests are "intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion. After at least seven days, more usually 14-30 days, an administrator will consider the discussion and determine, based on the discussion, whether the file should be deleted." Could an adminstrator kindly close Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Best Buy 20070222.jpg? Thank you. -Susanlesch 00:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. We are working on five months of requests simultaniously. --ALE! ¿…? 09:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Toledo, what a pain. Good luck. -Susanlesch 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have close it now as a keep and I have put {{FOP}} and {{trademarked}} on the description page of the image. I hope this is enough. --ALE! ¿…? 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks nice. Thank you very much. I added the same tags to the other image that came up in this discussion. -Susanlesch 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Structure change

Currently pages use a Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foo format. I propose we change that slightly to Commons:Deletion requests/2014/11/28/Image:Foo. This would insure unequeness -- Cat chi? 09:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ITYM "uniqueness". You don't like the various techniques of "piling on" used lately?  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You can say that yes. :) -- Cat chi? 12:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Having the page dependent on the date makes it impossible to predict where the deletion argument is, what page it will be on. The current structure makes the deletion page almost entirely predictable, and is relied on for system messages about deleted images. I think that predictability is worth keeping if at all possible. It also means that if you nominate an image for deletion a second time, you notice immediately the previous nomination. I think that's a useful side effect. I don't quite understand what you dislike about the current system? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't like date dependent ones either, makes it hard to find discussions later. using numbers after for dups is a good alternative. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since we are discussing this style issue, how do you all feel about the style of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg, vs. the style of (others that had a 2 at the end of the page name, that I can't find just now, perhaps because they were on another project)? I prefer the style of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg, although I was considering putting the new request at the top.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you put the new reqest on the bottom, make all the earlier requests show/hide collapsible, OK? else I'd put newer ones at the top. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to demonstrate on that page? Sorry to say, I'm not yet familiar enough with the syntax to completely implement your request.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried but... Apparently we don't have collapsable support here (yet)? seeM:help:collapsable... we would have to do it with divs. Since adding the neat class based support involves changes to common.css and common.js I think we would want to discuss it further before we did it willy nilly. (see w:MediaWiki:common.css and w:MediaWiki:common.js, and see also w:Wikipedia:NavFrame#Collapsible_tables ... ) I withdraw the suggestion for the time being (but note that on en: there is a lot of use of collapsing things for closed discussions, they get built into the templates that correspond to {{delf}} and {{delh}}...) Since I can't get my own archive box collapsing right, I'm not yet competent to actually explain how to do it... :) ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Monobook.js and .css has code for collapsable navigation boxes. But for some reason it does not seem to work since one or two months ago. /90.229.135.239 08:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Putting them all on one page also seems OK to me. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be streamlined

The deletion process is way too complicated, and should really be streamlined. It should not take almost 20 minutes to file a simple deletion request, especially, when we have so many copyvios waiting to be tagged.--Pharos 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It maybe takes you max 1 minute when you use "nominate for deletion" link in your toolbox on the lower left. --ALE! ¿…? 11:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, I had no idea. When was that feature added? Should it be placed in a more prominent position, perhaps?--Pharos 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see the link in my toolbox, has it been removed? All I see is a row of Standard character boxes and a row of six text strings from [[Category:]] to {{DEFAULTSORT:}}-Wikibob 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Look in the "toolbox" section to the left (under the search field). It only shows up in the Image namespace; you can't see it here, but you can at, say, Image:EVula's beloved Vera.jpg. EVula // talk // // 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"nominate for deletion" didn't work for me. I got some JavaScript errors.--Avron 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request really closed?

Hello! Just for a better understanding: Is this deletion request really closed? It seems to me that someone put a "delete" comment on the page AND the respective closing tags in one action ... And if it's no user comment, but the debate closing comment of the sysop (that's supposed by the line between) - why is the template still kept ten days after closing of debate? As I say: Just for a better understanding of the deletion process. Regards -- JörgM 08:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Errare humanum est. I deleted it. Samulili 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

{{kept}}

Currently, DRBot inserts Template:Kept on the image talk page for kept images. Of course, nobody actually reads image talk pages. Should it be that if no talk page exists, the template should be added to the image page itself instead? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no, as the results of a deletion request have absolutely nothing to do with the image itself; it still qualifies as discussion about the image. The talk page is still the best place for that to go, regardless of whether people use it or not. Besides, someone looking at a Commons image on Wikipedia, for example, couldn't care less about whether the image was ever up for deletion or not (especially if it's another language edition of wp other than English). EVula // talk // // 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, I support the proposal that if no talk page exists, {{kept}} should be added to the image page itself instead, but please internationalize {{kept}}. Also, please don't add another instance of {{kept}} if one already exists for that page or talk page, as was done in this edit. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Internationalizing {{kept}} is an excellent idea, completely outside of where the template gets put. EVula // talk // // 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
So how can we possibly implement this? -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've done. I call for more translators.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Forget "instead". I have come to the conclusion that, even if an image talk page exists, there should still be a notice in the image description page wikitext itself, because almost nobody reads image talk pages.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
People seldom read image talk pages and people seldom put images up for deletion another time, so there is a good balance there, imho. Samulili 07:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That is my view too. I think a few numbers of images may benefit from having the template on the image page, if they are controversial. But for the general image I prefer the talk page. If necessary, the template may manually be moved to the image page later. / Fred J 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it's not possible for the bot to create the image talk page? Giggy\Talk 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
To me, it's possible for the bot to create the image talk page; actually, the history of its contributions in the User talk namespace reveals many instances in which it has already done so, starting with this edit, 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC). Of course, it would be nice if all history, contributions, and watchlist pages had the same look and feel, such that I could see "N" New page markers, "b" bot markers, and "m" minor change markers on those history pages like I can on my watchlists.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
On an unrelated to the discussion note, internationalising {{kept}} is something that should be done. Giggy\Talk 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
How? -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've done. I call for more translators.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The talk pages must be exclusively used to indicate the result of discussions about any issue, and that includes deletion requests. Image pages are enough disorganized. --Juiced lemon 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What the bot would do is replace the delete template with the kept template, at the top of the image description page. How does that make the image description page more disorganized? Lots of people nominating images for deletion do not read image talk pages. What is the source of your "must" and "exclusively" language above, and how does starting a discussion of an image fit into your view?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

deletion request alert

i just wondered, if it would be usefull to automaticly put a allertbox on every discussion page of an article where a picture is used that has a deletion request.Elvis 07:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On en.wp, a little template gets put in the image's caption if it is up for deletion (or perhaps just speedy deletion). Might not be a bad idea to do the same on the articles and/or their talkpages, as well. EVula // talk // // 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Found the template: en:Template:Ifdc. EVula // talk // // 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion time

Other users already complained about this subject but I think it's not useless talking about this again. The period of time between the tagging and the deletion of the image has been long. Is there nothing we can do about that? Talk2lurch 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than have more people close requests no, not really... Giggy\Talk 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Giggy that you cannot do much directly.
Something that slows it down is that many deletion requests are complex, concern several images at once, or are based on an uncertain copyright status that can't easily be decided ("grey-area"). I think admins get burnt out with this tedious and difficult task.
Some things you can do that might help is to add helpful relevant comment to the deletion requests (even if the deletion requests appear simple), to translate comments in non-English languages; or if the deletion request concerns a non-English source, to validate it.
If there is a particular deletion requests you want closed, it is not forbidden to ask an admin to close it. I would even say that it is a good idea because some admins are better suited to handle certain deletion requests than others. In some cases, requests for closure have succesfully been made at the administrators noticeboard.
Fred J 12:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Old deletion request

I noticed that a deletion request made three months ago that I was involved with hasn't closed yet. Is it possible to get someone to close Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg? Thanks. Carcharoth (Commons) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Giggy 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the deletion request archiving bot?

What happened to the deletion request archiving bot? It seems, that the bot is not archiving anything. Why is that? --ALE! ¿…? 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Bryan#Deletion requests. --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It did not archive anything in Commons:Deletion requests/2007/11 and in Commons:Deletion requests/2007/12. --ALE! ¿…? 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fixed, should run tomorrow. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Increase time before closure?

I might have mentioned this before, but if I did then nothing came out of it.

I'd like to increase the time before media gets deleted to 14 days, instead of 7.

Reasons are:

  • Users often don't visit Commons as regularly as they visit Wikipedia. Request might need to travel through Wikiprojects or notice boards, and users might come here and not read and write English well, and need translation, or they will have to tell someone who does speak the language.
  • The effects of having a media deleted on Commons is greater than if it would be deleted on Wikipedia.
  • Only a minor part of the media get deleted after 7 days. Others are kept waiting for months (the current backlog is at least 2 months for most ordinary requests -- at one time it was at 4 months). This gives the impression that an image only gets deleted quickly if an admin with a particular agenda stumbles upon it, and such a situation is unfair.

Anyone against?

Fred J (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest we change it to 5 days :) My reasoning:
  • I have seen that some admins close debates that are "only" 99 % clear after just two or three days. I don't do it myself but I can understand it: 99 % is quite clear and we have a huge back log (plus the ability of undeleting an image).
  • Possibly one reason we have such a backlog is that once you could close a debate, it is already gone from COM:DR! If COM:DR showed deletion requests from the past seven days, we could close debates at the top o the page if one could close debates after five days. Emphasis on could because many debates will take weeks, no matter where we place the line.
I'm not particularly worried about the effect of people not visiting Commons so often. Most debates are not such where (honest) input from a user would make any difference, and when it might we usually don't close requests after seven days.
Now, the third point you argument is very interesting. I do and I don't agree with. It might seem unfair to a user in question, which is truly not nice. I don't like the kind of drama it can generate. However, I would like to emphasize two other things. 1) Result instead of process: did we delete an image that should have been deleted, and did we keep an image that should have been kept. 2) Voluntary basis instead of control: nothing in Commons happens without motivation (agenda) and if we curb motivation too much, we kill the system. Samulili 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Linux_Mint_Logo_oficial.jpg

Our logo is under GPL

Its free

Please remove it from this list

For more information please visit us>

www.linuxmint.com

Maty1206 Linux Mint official developer

Long list of duplicates

Hi, there is a long list of duplicate ogg files here. Should I mark them all for deletion? Is there some automatic way to mark them for deletion, so we needn't do it one-by-one?Ferrylodge 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the list:

Ferrylodge 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hot to delete category?

The page states: It is rarely necessary to delete category pages But how this is done?--Avron 07:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is a wrongly named category, add {{bad name|other category}}, if there is any other obvious reason to delete it use {{speedydelete|reason}}. To discuss categories, go to COM:CFD. --rimshottalk 11:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Stupid me

I added an image of bad quality, not knowing that there was another image here that I could have used for my purpose. Now I can't figure out how to request it's deletion. It's much easier on nn:... I've marked it with a deletion tag and tried to make a subpage. The image is Image:Stordabrua.jpg. Can someone complete the request for me? --Tannkrem 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can just tag it with {{speedydelete|userreq}}. giggy (:O) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I could do that. But the deletion guidelines states that "Redundant or bad quality files never get speedily deleted." --Tannkrem 11:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The existence of another image is no reason to delete this one. It's a pretty good picture actually. Maybe at some point, someone will want a photograph from that angle. You still need to add source information, though, either "own work" if you made the image yourself or information where you got the image from. --rimshottalk 12:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The picture isn't bad and really should stay if at all possible. __meco 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)