Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

This is a mess and I'm not sure where to go to start this process, but last year, someone did an improper cut-and-paste move on these files by downloading them and re-uploading them under new names as their "own work," after which the original files, their history, and the correct attributions were deleted as duplicates. Redirects currently exist at these locations.

--Ibagli (Talk) 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support That has happened to me a couple of times (one of which I caught before deletion and fixed). Restore the original uploads/credits. Possibly rename, or just make the newer names a redirect to the original one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
user:Ibagli There's a problem here which I cannot solve -- presumably this needs a "C" in the center, replacing the "E" on Elizabeth's flag. The deletion as a duplicate was, of course, wrong, as the current version of the flag belongs to Charles, not his mother and the two are not duplicates.
I have restored only New Zealand -- is what I did there what you want? If so, I will continue with the other four. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they all need to be undeleted, and then they'll have to be renamed/merged (not sure which would be more appropriate) to the locations where they had been redirecting (there's nothing wrong with the new file names, they were just reuploaded with no history and incorrect attribution).--Ibagli (Talk) 09:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure one of us understands. As I see it, there are two royal standards involved, that for Elizabeth and a new one for Charles, which we don't have. All we have for Charles is the version with the blank center. So there's no rename or merge involved, just taking the history back to just before the redirect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no current royal standard for any of these countries (Canada might be announcing theirs in a week), as they were personal flags for Elizabeth II, who is dead. The "blank center" version is fictitious/speculative and was changed by one user who jumped the gun on deleting E and EIIR cyphers from everything immediately after Elizabeth II died. These speculative, unsourced changes were largely reverted by various users, but this resulted in the the existence of identical duplicate files and and the improper deletion of the older files rather than the newly-uploaded ones. I don't know what the best course of action to remedy this is, but I think it would be one of:
  • Undelete all of these files, delete the newly-uploaded ones, and move/merge these files to the 19XX-2022 names, leaving redirects that can be replaced with the Charles III flags when/if they are announced.
  • Undelete all of these files, leave them at the unchanged names with the E in the center and not the fictitious blank circle until/unless new flags are announced, and simply delete the newly-uploaded ones as newer identical duplicates.
In any case, whatever way it's achieved, the blank center versions shouldn't be on here at all at least until we get an indication that the new reign's flags will follow the old pattern, and the old history should be restored.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume the files should be at names where the years are specified, and the names without specification should be redirects. I assume they should point to the "E" versions until we have the new versions, not to break uses where using the old one is unproblematic. The history post 8 Sep should probably be moved to the "C" version just before uploading the new version, to keep the file history. –LPfi (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KOLINLAMIL.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The file was deleted by @Ellywa: as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atara123, whereas he said "per nomination, although a link to Instagram has been provided, this does not show per COM:EVID that these logo's are available with a free license. Therefore the images must be deleted".

However on this particular file, I have personally fixed the problem, added the source (not from instagram) and fixed the license used. I did that to show @Atara123: on how to fix the problem, I also put strikethrough on the file on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atara123 to indicated that this file was no longer have any issue licensing. Therefore it should not be part of mass deletions. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ckfasdf, I looked again at this file. Indeed, you uploaded a different design of the logo then Atara12 did. However, the source you provided, , is not avaiable now. It can be seen at this youtube channel. Do you have another source which shows this can be freely licensed? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you found it on the official Kolinlamil youtube channel and it also can easily be found on images related "Kolinlamil" proves that this is an official logo.
All military unit logo in Indonesia have been authorized to be used by highest command of each respective branches in the form of regulation and always with the same regulation of dictate the formation of that military unit. Refer to Article 42 of the 2014 Indonesia Copyright Act, file comes law acts and regulations are not copyrighted. hence PD-IDNoCopyright will apply. Kolinlamil is formed by regulation of "Skep Men/Kasal No. 5401.16", although that regulation may not be available online, it can still be verified to official Indonesian military source. hence, it should not be deleted.
Actually, this argument is also applies to military logo uploaded by Atara123, but he didn't put correct licensing. So yea.... Ckfasdf (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I didn't close one of the brackets on the license. --RAN (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem was missing information: if the author is an "Anonymous family member", how can you know who the heirs are? --rimshottalk 16:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Because it was either my father or my mother, either way the license is valid. The other images in the set have my parents and other family members paired up.
  • The log says it was deleted because of the absence of a license, not a challenge to the validity of the existing license. The template was malformed because I left off a closing bracket "}". Generally we do not require probate lawyers legal testimony for family images. I could see requiring that for well known commercial images, where someone is claiming to be the heir of a famous commercial photographer, not for some holiday snaps of family members. --RAN (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • While undeleting, administrators need to verify copyright status and other potential issues, not only the deletion reason. Ankry (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solicito la restauración de la imagen en cuestión. No entiendo por qué la eliminan si en la consulta de borrado tiene tres Manténgase. Agradezco su colaboración. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma vertical).jpg. I don't think we need all of the various versions of this image -- but let's restore one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently there is Ticket:2023041310012681 for this image. What does it say? --Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig, The ticket mentions three files viz: File:Renny_Manzano_en_Jesús_Villarreal_en_Bogotá,_2019.jpg, File:Ana_Torin,_2023_(Shot_vertical).jpg and File:Ana_Torin,_2023_(Shot_horizontal).jpg. The ticket is open and needs attention from agents who know Spanish. I feel all the files can be restored once the permission is verified and approved. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the horizontal one should be the one rightly linked on DR. File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma horizontal).jpg. Nonetheless, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration prior to successful VRT verification. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoring File:Renny_Manzano_en_Jesús_Villarreal_en_Bogotá,_2019.jpg as it is essentially a personal image. Bedivere (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public Domain Mark files

These files have the public domain mark licence (PDM) on Flickr. The public domain mark is now acceptable on Commons (COM:PDM). (Note: I have made this request due to a request on my talk page by @Docosong)

146 files

Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The files were declared PDM by FCBQ, not by the actual photographers. IMO, in order to accept this, we need an evidence that the photographers transferred their copyright to FCBQ or that they declared PD status of the photo themselves. Also, the author of the photos is declared as FCBQ: this probably violates the photographers' moral rights (but this is fixable). Any evidence that Pol Puertas and Ricard Rovira were regular empoyee of FCBQ? Ankry (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ricard Rovira independent photographer FCBQ (2003-2019).-- Docosong (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My general approach to copyright transfers is: If an organization is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then we can assume that it sufficiently has its act together with respect to copyright that we don't need to see the detailed terms of the contract it has with its photographers. -- King of ♥ 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per KoH. Quite a reasonable criteria. Yann (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am not convinced here as in my opinion, PDM set by non-author might mean that the uploader is unsure if they own copyright (and can grant any license) or they just have a wide permission to use (and they do not know if any restriction applies). However, Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral if there is consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I was going to oppose this, as COM:PDM specifically talks about authors marking their own work with the PDM, and the template {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} says "This work has been released into public domain by the author, on the Flickr website ...". I thought we wanted to accept the PDM only in these cases, but now I see that King of Hearts created {{PDMark-owner}} in 2020, apparently based on a discussion consensus, so this would be applicable, I guess. KoH, shouldn't {{PDMark-owner}} also be mentioned in COM:PDM, then? Gestumblindi (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a follow up to the undeletion request for File:Почтовая открытка СССР "С Новым годом", фото Е. Савалова, 1986, лицевая сторона.png and a few others related to postal cards and/or postal stationery of the Soviet Union where the images were undeleted. What it essentially comes down to is that Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia makes it clear that postal cards published by the Russian Post are in the public domain. Even in cases where they might contain otherwise copyrighted works. There is no stipulation in the guidelines or the law at least from I've seen that the prevision makes an exception depending on which side of the postal card the image is of. The law merely says "postal cards" are in the public domain. So the image should be undeleted since it's clearly in the public domain. The same goes for the following images, which were all deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Postal cards of the Soviet Union with definitive stamp.

--Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Почему вы удаляет файл не спросив разрешения у автора? Вы пишите об авторских правах, так сотресая воздух... А сами их нарушаете. Это мое фото и я имею полные на него права, а вот вы нарушаете их удаляя без выяснений. Why are you deleting the file without asking permission from the author? You write about copyrights, so shattering the air ... And you yourself violate them. This is my photo and I have full rights to it, but you violate them by deleting without asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:04, 2 June 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a copyrighted movie poster. Policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the poster was obviously published elsewhere and its author is not identified as Wikimedia Commons volunteer, the provided {{Own}} declaration is obviously fake or incorrect and qualifies the image for sppedy deletion. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done As per Jim. Obviously not {{Own}}. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Pls note ticket 2023050510002212, already confirmed with Michael Daniels on May 15th and 18th. Fr. S. Fernandes already authorized and confirmed the use of Rev. Rego photos. Thanks Setwikirec0 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead of wasting your time here. Thuresson (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per above, and the very clear instructions at the top of this page: "please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed." (bold added). --Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, this old family photographs of Lee was taken in 1940s. It should be good and require no permit/copyright as India's copyright act is applicable from 1958. Pls restore. Thank you kindly. Setwikirec0 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See w:en:Copyright law of India#Applicable_Copyright_Act_before_1958. Photos published before 1948 were copyrighted in India 50 years since publication. If this term expired before 1.1.1996, the photo is PD in US. So in order to determine the photo copyright status we need an exact publication date. If the date is 1.1.1946 or later, the photo is still copyrighted in US and we need a free license permission from the photographer or (if he died already) from the photographer heirs in order to host the photo in Wikimedia Commons. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless the date is provided. Ankry (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indian pictures from before 1942 are in the public domain in India and in USA. It is the date of creation, not publication which matters. Yann (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why 1942, not 1946? In each case "1940s" is not precise enough to determine copyright status. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The law changed in 1942, and was extended from 50 to 60 years from creation, but not retroactive. So pictures from 1941 became public domain at the end of 1991, before the URAA cut off date, while 1942 pictures became public domain in 2003, after the URAA cut off date. Yann (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The summary cited above is incorrect. The 1914 law says
"Act language is: "the term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and, where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts.")
I read that to mean that the copyright is 50 years from the making of the photograph and that the copyright is owned by the person who owned the negative when the image was taken. Although that will usually be the actual photographer, in cases where Jones lends her camera to Smith to take a picture, Jones will own the copyright, not Smith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does this matter here? It is up to VRT team to verify (or not) if the permission sender owns the negative. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Hello VRT editors, Please restore the file:LeeYounChinPeiMaySchool51.jpg This photo was taken in 1951. The Indian copyright act came into effect in 1958. Kindly restore this photo. Thanking you kindly. Setwikirec0 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The VRT team is reachable via e-mail or VRT Noticeboard, not here.
  • Per Indian Copyright Act, 1914, the photo was copyrighted 50 years since publication. This means that it falls under URAA and is copyrighted in US (likely 95 years since publication). Ankry (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Will be under US copyright until at least 1/1/2047. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I have written permission from the copyright holder which they submitted via VRT a few weeks ago. Not sure how the process is going. In the mean time, I would like to have the files undeleted, rather than creating entirely new ones as that would create a whole other debacle.

I hope this request can be honoured.--Seyisage (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically without further action by the uploader if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 11 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Please undelete, we have VRT permission in ticket:2023042110003013 (I am a VRT agent for that queue). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason for this undeletion is that the image in question is a photograph of a work of 2D art by Caroline Durieux, thereby falling within US public domain.

--LC Cook (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it is possible that the work is PD -- I don't see a copyright notice -- the reason given is not a reason why it would be PD. Unless it can be proven that the work was published without notice before March 1, 1989, we must assume that the photograph infringes on the copyright owned by Durieux's heirs.

Note that User:LC Cook is a sock of the uploader, User:Eretif. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I initially uploaded these images with the wrong permissions. I was explicitly granted permission by the author, DaMaris B. Hill, to use the photos of herself and her book covers. In fact, I was hired by her to create her Wikipedia page. Please undelete the photos so I can use them for her biography page. Mahal AU (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are a variety of problems here.

First, a warning: paid editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. You must disclose your status, see Paid-contribution disclosure.

Second, it is unlikely that Ms. Hill has the right to freely license any of the images above. It is very unusual for a photographer to give a subject the right to freely license images to others. Licenses are almost always limited to the subject's using the image in their own publicity.

In order for the first image, the photo of Ms. Hill, to be restored, the photographer, Beowulf Sheehan, must send a free license using VRT.

In the case of the three book covers, the copyright holder, which is usually the publisher, but may be the designer, must send a free license also using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe these meet the requirement of being anonymous/pseudononymous. --RAN (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]