Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion.
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Several proposals for changes[edit]

I have made several proposals for changes (mainly additions) to the criteria at Commons:Village Pump/Proposals. Please have a look. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Nominated by mistake -- File:WMMS-HD2 PSD display.jpg[edit]

I recently uploaded a file which qualifies for speedy deletion under GSD#7. I mistakenly nominated that file for a regular deletion, however. I withdrew the regular deletion and placed the speedy deletion request: both tags are now listed. Please revert if appropriate. I apologize for any inconvenience. Also please note this related topic: Commons_talk:Deletion_requests#Nominated_by_mistake. Levdr1lp / talk 12:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please disregard. File has already been deleted. Levdr1lp / talk 12:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal F11 : Unusued or Low quality explicit image(s).[edit]

Commons main objective is as a media to support educational or academic content. Commons is NOT a host for porn.

Therefore, I feel there should be a CSD for unused 'explicit' images, which would also encompass COM:NOPENIS deletions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This was literally shut down at the proposals village down a month ago, in fact Wikimedia Commons has a shortage of many explicit images because of this cavalier mentality. I am not saying that we should be a porn site, but we shouldn't be overly exclusive with nudity for arbitrary reasons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the archived discussion? I would rather that Commons as a community voluntarily implements an appropriately proactive policy on 'explicit' images, as opposed to being forced into implementing unreasonable retroactive censorship by external interests (such as the authorities in the UK, and certain third party charitable organisations) which would disrupt the ability of commons to meet it's objective of supporting academic, education or cultural content. As you may have heard, the UK is going to start enforcing in law a provision that requires UK based sites with 'explicit' content (which is otherwise legal) to carry out mandatory age verification (The law is intended to force UK based porn sites to ensure that they don't have under-age viewers). Commons is not UK based of course, but the UK is also considering blocking 'explict content' on foreign sites that don't age check. As "blocking" would be unreasonably disruptive applied against Wikimedia Commons (And doubts remain as to the technical feasibility of blocking specfic content), a tighter regime about explicit images with respect to application of genuine educational,academic or cultural scope on Commons would be appreciated. This is why a new CSD was proposed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/12#Exhibitionist uploads" and yes, the images stored here are stored for educational value but child pornography has never been allowed on Wikimedia Commons and the mere suspicion of it has gotten many images deleted in the past. Please also see "COM:OMGAPENIS" and as Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States of America so uploaders from outside the United Kingdom don't have to obey British laws. Plus nudity and pornography are illegal in many countries already and that didn't affect the content of Wikimedia Commons in the past so why would it affect the website now? Also just because an image contains nudity doesn't mean that it is automatically less educational than an image which doesn't depict any nude scenes or pornography. I do not want to scare away third (3rd) party donors either but a mass censorship campaign will hurt the website, not help it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The issue isn't just nudity, as I have said elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bulk category deletions under C3, for "<place> by <year>" categories?[edit]

A while back, I needed to categorise a number of photos of British regions in the 1960s. Accordingly I set up a number of the categories Category:1969 in Lancashire (Furness) etc. The main reason for doing this was to have Category:1967 in Lancashire (Furness), so that any images of Donald Campbell's fatal speed record would go into the correct county. As I did not at that point know just what the distribution of such images would be, I set up a number of them, before I placed the content into them.

A number of these have now been deleted by JuTa under COM:CSD#C3. No discussion, no use of warning labels beforehand, simply immediate deletion.

  1. Category:1968 in Westmorland
  2. Category:1968 in Cumberland
  3. Category:1967 in Lancashire (Furness)
  4. Category:1966 in Westmorland
  5. Category:1966 in Lancashire (Furness)
  6. Category:1965 in Westmorland
  7. Category:1965 in Lancashire (Furness)
  8. Category:1965 in Cumberland
  9. Category:1964 in Westmorland
  10. Category:1964 in Lancashire (Furness)
  11. Category:1964 in Cumberland
  12. Category:1963 in Westmorland
  13. Category:1963 in Cumberland
  14. Category:1960 in Westmorland
  15. Category:1960 in Lancashire (Furness)

As all admins are surely aware, CSD#C3 begins, If a category is empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used, it may be speedily deleted. So why are these structural categories, which form an obvious and well-defined purpose, up for CSD at all? Let alone doing so (against the rest of C3) without any attempt at discussion?

This is just yet another example of admin muda: useless, indeed negative, make-work to play at "serious admin business" whilst actually being the opposite of useful and deliberately irritating to other editors.

Is this a valid use of C3? It already seems clear enough that it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I regularly work on User:Achim55/Unused categories which lists categories that are empty for more than 9 months. I think thats enough time to to assume there will be no meaningfull content within the next time. If not they are easily recreated or restored if you give me a call on my talk page. regards --JuTa 16:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: You could prevent such deleteion if you put {{Prospective category}} to the category description pages. regards --JuTa 16:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Be aware that C3 recently changed -- it is now empty categories *unlikely to be ever meaningfully used*, not strictly empty for any reason. I'm not sure these qualify per that wording, so don't think they are speedyable under the new standard. We probably do need a way to mark ones deemed reasonably likely to be used eventually so they don't end up in maintenance lists -- is the prospective category tag enough for that? If so, perhaps just adding that would be preferable to deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thx, Carl Lindberg I realy didnt noticed that change. Well, over the years I likely deleted several 10000s of empty cats that way. I rearly got complaints or restore requests and they didnt got recreated rarely. So about +95% (guessed) of the deletions were sensefull, because they still empty. If you have a look into old Versions of Achims page like this (Feb 2019), this (Aug 2018), this (Mar 2018), this (Mar 2017) or this (Mar 2016) you see that most of the links are still red. In my eyes permanetly empty categories do disturb the readers of commons by filling up (senslessly) i.e. internal and external search results or via templates i.e. on top of year in ... cats like Category:1989 in Tibet the 1982 cat here is shown as red link and evrybody knows its non-existant, But if its created before there is any content for it and shown as blue link, readers will click on it in the hope to find images and get disappointed to see its empty. PS: Pinging Andy Dingley for his interest. --JuTa 18:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a period of six weeks (since these were created) when C3 supported deletion of everything empty. Before that it didn't even exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought the empty category criteria had been there since 2008, per the archived discussion. It had been pretty common to speedy delete for that reason. Needed categories can just be re-created, no problem -- the bigger issue was when there was content in the deleted category, even if just several different parent categories, which would be more annoying to re-create. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That was G1. Which used to get used as an excuse to delete categories. But there was no C3. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, OK. But there was a bullet point which mentioned G1 applied to empty categories since January 2018. And it had been pretty common practice before that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Or in the current example of Andy in Category:1961 in Lancashire (Furness) people would klick on the 1960, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 cats (which I've deleted) to find more suitable images for their purpose and see all of them are empty and might have given up before they klick on the 1969 cat where there is realy an image. Now they easily can identify where to find content and where not. regards --JuTa 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There is generally an image count listed in the parent cat before you click -- if you were coming from Category:Lancashire (Furness) in the 1960s you would see the cats were empty. The index is a bit more problematic, to be sure. At any rate, nothing prevents them from being nominated for regular deletion -- that way someone could argue for keeping them, at least. It's just the no-discussion speedy deletion which can be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • So you assume that readers looking for "anything from the 1960s" will only search a fixed number of categories before giving up? Rather than looking at those which meet their needs. Positively psychic. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Carl thats only the case if people using the parent-category link and not the template links at top of the page.
@JuTa: Sure, but that navbox is not the only way categories are used. I suppose it's more common with these "by year" categories, but that does not apply to all categories. And maybe it's possible to modify {{Decade years navbox}} to use the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word to change the color of those links to gray or something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andy, I dont know when people giving up to search further images when they find only empty categories. Some might give up after the first false positive hit, mome after the fifth some never. But its not hard (for me) to imagine the frustration while searching for images and (only) hitting empty cats. regards. --JuTa 07:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

How to appeal an invalid CSD Nomination.[edit]

File:The Know Show - Bob Novella with LARP prop.jpg has been nominated for Speedy Deletion, with the claim that it is a screen shot. But it is not a screen shot - the user took the photo himself on his phone. So the CSD notice is not valid at all. The CSD notice says that the only way to appeal is to replace the CSD tag with "a regular deletion request". But there is nothing about how to keep the file, and not delete it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Only Administrators are allowed to just remove a CSD tag, except in cases of clear vandalism.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks for the quick reply. What is the process to request an Admin to do that?--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: In this case, there is already a DR where you can !vote {{Vk}}. In another similar situation, you could post on the page's associated talk page, but that might not be noticed, or you could also post on the user talk page of an Admin who has helped you in the past, or you could post to one of our noticeboards like COM:AN. See also COM:DP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg @Jeff G.: thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Blatant copyright violations outside of filespace[edit]

  1. I think there should be a speedy deletion criterion for blatant copyright violations outside of filespace (i.e. text copyvios), for although they do not happen often, they can be just as serious as file copyvios, and deletion is likely to be uncontroversial in such cases.
  2. Perhaps clarify that speedy deletion criterion F1 (for copyright violations in filespace) should be used only for "unambiguous" cases, i.e. where a file is an obvious copyright violation. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it would be more sensible to separate text copyvio (say, G11) from more ubiquitous F1–F6 (file copyvio). Imagine: someone uploaded a new free file, but stuffed {{Information}} with copy-and-paste from a copyrighted document. Then the copyrighted stuff on the namespace-6 page can be blanked and revision deleted under G11, but the file may remain intact. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification for G7 (deletion requested by uploader)[edit]

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7:

Old and proposed text:

Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content. For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed instead.
+
Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) content that is unused at the moment the request is made. For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed instead.

Yes, this clarification appears to be needed to stop random editors from being able to sabotage G7 requests. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Looks like there is more to it than I thought. My vote is nuetral for now. Masum Reza📞 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overly bureaucratic for what affects only a very low number of files. A regular DR is always the safer option anyway. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification for G7: discussion[edit]

Why this proposal feels so dramatic to me for some reason? And why it is here of all places? Amendment requests should be proposed on relevant talk pages which in this case is Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Masum Reza📞 23:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: It's a policy page, and the change is more than fixing a spelling error. But I suppose the request could be here as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure this really helps with sabotage. Wouldn't users just make sure to go around and remove usages right before they make the request instead of after? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a lot of extra legwork that you are putting on reviewing admins. Not necessarily saying that is a bad thing but you are saying that admins now have to look at every single use and determine when the image was put on that page, not necessarily an easy task if it is a more edited article. If something is reasonably in use I'm of the mind that G7 never applies. Period. Doesn't matter if it is within the seven days or not. Provided the copyright is fine it was released under an irrevocable license. I'm all for common courtesy and deleting things that people reasonably ask to be deleted but if it is properly in use on an article deleting it is a detriment to the projects and to those we serve. --Majora (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Well not quite but kinda yes maybe but not like that. G7 shouldn't be refused because someone added the file to an article after the request. I don't mind if the onus is on the uploader or any other user to prove that. But if someone points out the file was added to an article after the request, G7 shouldn't be refused, like Christian Ferrer and Taivo did. (I pinged Taivo after that comment, he still didn't honor the G7)
The wording could be changed to "content that is unused or proven to have been unused at the moment the request is made", would that help? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we have opposing views on this matter. I follow more closely with the ideas stated in COM:NOTUSED. If something is reasonably in use (keyword there) then we should air far more on the side of keeping the image. Imagine if the image is of something rare, something we don't have any other illustrative material for. You would still deprive our users of that image simply because someone changed their mind? That is an extreme example, sure, but the idea that we should delete something, or not, just because of the timing of when it was placed in an article seems a little extreme as well. Admins were given the mop because of the community's trust that they will make good judgement calls. Forcing the deleting of something that is legitimately in use simply because of an arbitrary time frame stated in G7 is, again, a detriment to those we serve. --Majora (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, you have a point. Pictures of rare things should not be deleted just because the uploader requests deletion. A DR would be a better choice. But if the image in question is of low resolution, blurry or better images are available, G7 request should be honored in my opinion. Masum Reza📞 01:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Bad quality photos would not be able to be reasonably used. Again, the keyword here is if the image is reasonably in use on a project. That word allows for admin discretion which is the whole point of having human admins. If we want to talk about changing the wording of G7 we should change it to allow for more admin discretion (codify the word "reasonable" into the wording). --Majora (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I don't know if our views differ all that much. Yes, of course it is always a shame to lose a valuable image. But the issue is more complicated than that. Imagine we refuse to delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:SharafkhanehPort00007.jpg because that swwiki editor added it to an article, knowing full well it could be deleted shortly. Awesome, we get to keep an image that's certainly useful and in scope! But.. I don't think we should expect any more contributions from this photographer ever again, if we punish mistakes like that. And also.. we'd be hosting an image that quite possibly isn't actually free. Clicking "continue" in UploadWizard is hardly a binding contract in many countries. If someone actively tries to get their uploaded file(s) deleted shortly after upload, the license is probably not enforceable. A re-user who grabbed that file in good faith and never looked back before the uploader tried to get it deleted wouldn't be liable, but also likely wouldn't be allowed to continue distributing the file with that free license once they are notified.
Hewhoreleaseshisworkunderafreelicensesayswhat? - What? - GOTCHA! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz, Clindberg, Majora: Should we add the following text to G7? (make it more like en-wiki criteria) If the sole author blanks a newly created page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. While patrolling new pages, I've seen some pages that had been blanked by it's author but couldn't find the correct criteria. Masum Reza📞 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    For example, K-177_(Kansas_highway). The only contributor blanked it's page. I tried to tag it per G1 (I thought it was a accidental creation), but Tulsi Bhagat deleted it per GA1. That criteria was applicable but I wanted a more specific criteria. Masum Reza📞 07:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    We don't need to special case every little thing. Administrators are able to think for themselves. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    I also agree with this sentiment. I'm thinking this is more and more looking like an enwiki idea en:WP:CREEP. Where we just keep adding rules little by little until we are smothered by them. Admins were made admins because they are trustworthy enough to made decisions. If there are problems with this then we should be discussing individual cases. Not wholesale adding new rules like this. --Majora (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    G1 seems okay for that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Extending eligibility time for G7 vote[edit]

Can the community vote on extending eligibility of G7 to 2 weeks. The reason for my request proposal is so recent uploaded files that the users don't want anymore have more time to be eligible for G7. Please come join this discussion. --VKras (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: You can still request non-speedy deletion after 7 days. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Alexis Jazz Files uploaded more than 7 days ago take much longer to be deleted. --VKras (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: Could you clarify some things for me? What do you mean by Files uploaded more than 7 days ago take much longer to be deleted.? Masum Reza📞 22:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Masumrezarock100 Basically, files uploaded more than 7 days ago need regular DR to be deleted. --VKras (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)