Commons talk:Deletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Deutsch: Auf dieser Seite werden Verfahrensfragen rund um Löschanträge diskutiert. Bitte hier KEINE Löschanträge oder Wiederherstellungswünsche stellen.
English: This page is for discussions concerning the deletion request process itself. Please do NOT post individual deletion requests or appeals here.
Español: Esta página es para discusiones acerca del mismo proceso de requerimiento de borrado. Por favor NO añadas requerimientos de borrado individuales o apelaciones aquí
Français: Cette page est consacrée aux discussions concernant le processus de demandes de suppression proprement dit. S'il vous plaît, n’ajoutez ici NI demande de suppression NI réclamation au sujet d'une suppression.
Italiano: Questa pagina è per discussioni relative a richieste di cancellazione. Per favore NON aggiungere quì richieste individuali di cancellazioni ne' appelli ad esse relativi.

Del Request[edit]

Please help me moderators.

6 year ago I uploaded an image of my best mate and named the file a portrait of a serial killer.

6 years later, he's out looking for a professional job and he gets called up if he actually is a serial killer.

I need my false contribution deleted immediately. Stevecarzee (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

✓  Done although it may take some time for it not to appear in Google searches. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate request[edit]

I just nominated a great number of images in Category:Burj Al Arab for deletion with visual file change, not realizing they had already been nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Al Arab. Sorry. What's the best way to handle this? Leave the double nomination? Mark my deletions as kept? Thanks. It's too bad VFC doesn't tell you that the images has already been nominated. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: VFC does tell you, it's the "d" on a red background in the image preview caption... granted, it's not the most conspicuous thing ever, but those codes are there to aid the users of VFC. Now that they've been nominated, I'd suggest one of two options - either merge your request into the still-open request if the files and rationale mostly overlap, or (and I'd suggest you do this if you leave your DR at all) make a note on your DR for the closing admin to realize the double nomination was not intentional and request the closing admin to sort it out. The biggest danger, I think, is that it may confuse some of the more eager DR closers... but I don't think it's a big issue. Storkk (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Storkk That's very helpful! Sorry again for the mistake. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Help![edit]

I'm currently doing a GA assessment of the Pirin National Park article on English Wikipedia. There is a map included among the files in the article; it appears to be a printed map which has had some blocks of color added to show where Bulgaria's various parks are located. My problem is this: I cannot see where the underlying map has been sourced, and I very much doubt that the uploader has created it himself/herself. Do I suggest it for deletion? Or is there somewhere where more knowledgeable editors can check this sort of thing? MeegsC (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You are right that the underlying map is to be sourced. However, I would recommend to ask the uploader, Suffer Tedkov, first and give it some time before a deletion request is opened. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No response from uploader since october → filed a DR. --El Grafo (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Did something go wrong with this request?[edit]

Hi, I don't have any experience with deletion requests, but something looks weird with this one. When I follow the link to the nomination page I don't end up on a discussion but on a deletion request for a project page, which doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Possibly I didn't grasp the concept of how this works... or something went wrong with the request. In that case, can someone please fix it? Thanks. --91.34.47.105 17:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything is fine, that is @Mef.ellingen instead of using "Nominate for deletion" link, unskillfully tried to fill deletion request(s) "manually". I have deleted malformed requests. --jdx Re: 18:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: I recreated it properly.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Hi, should user pages be nominated for deletion too? Here's one that is basically a web shop. What is the procedure for that kind of thing? --87.150.3.137 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I just DR'ed two user pages, one of them is this one. Thanks for showing. Of course they can be deleted. --E4024 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
✓  Done All files deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please delete; I DO NOT OWN THIS![edit]

I messed up and uploaded the wrong file. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CD_for_Wiki.jpg#metadata WikiGuy88678 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarify wording for disputing a DR closed as "keep"[edit]

In §Appealing decisions:

If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it...you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion).

I recently disputed a "keep" decision and decided to appeal it. I had read this instruction as meaning Commons:Undeletion requests was available for both "delete" and "keep" closures, and renomination was a side-note alternative for "keep"s. At my Undeletion requests item, I was told that renomination is the route for "keep", with Undeletion requests only being for "delete". Proposed wording change:

If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it...you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests for deleted files, or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion.

Any thoughts? DMacks (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Location of subsequent nominations[edit]

If a file is nominated for deletion a second (or more) time, should that subsequent nomination go on the same page as the original, as a new section on Commons:Deletion requests/pagename, or should it go on a separate page (Commons:Deletion requests/pagename/2 or similar)? The sidebar tools seem to do the former, whereas en.wp uses the latter. I don't see it documented anywhere, but given the cross-wiki userbase, we should make it clear how things happen "here". DMacks (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: It appears the "Nominate for deletion" tool performs well enough for our purposes, as its behavior in this regard has not been questioned before. I like having the history right there on the same page.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@DMacks: You have nothing special to do, just use the "Nominate for deletion" button or the "Perform batch task" button as you do usually, and a sub-section is automatically created in the existing DR if any, exemple: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FoP-Italy or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steinbjorn.JPG Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Christian. Nothing special is needed to do. If new request is a new section of old request, then it is easier to look at old requests, including arguments pro and contra. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete image[edit]

Please, delete this (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Assemblea_Cardedeu.jpg) image where some people won't like to see themselves there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas.espanol (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas.espanol: I fixed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assemblea Cardedeu.jpg for you.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

As still a relative newcomer I made a mistake. I set a Deletion request to the file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander-huber.jpg, later I saw that I had to put a speedy deletion request to the file, because there is a apparent copyright violation. The right-holder of the pic is [© www.dav-summit-club.de] and not User Paolo.dL, who made the upload. ....HMS (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Perhaps, this is not the the page I can ask, how to change the request to a speedy request. Sorry. ....HMS (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@PaulasBunt: Wouldn't fuss it, it will get managed. Always feel free to add the extra detail to the deletion request. I have done it on this case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. ....HMS (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you ...[edit]

Are you serious? You expect me to read, understand and follow this page?

I came here (lucky I found it btw) to probe a possible deletion. What I found was a 100k load of text. Don't blame me for missing and misunderstanding your page. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Please read COM:DP instead.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I apologise for my language. I let impatience taking over in a stressfull situation. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Error[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/2018/01 shows only list until January 7. The most recent requests are not shown. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Template include size is too large.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request created in error[edit]

Hello,

Please remove the request at Commons:Deletion_requests/Auckland_Museum_cultural_permissions; it was created during testing. The issue we were trying to solve has since been fixed by using VisualFileChange.js to nominate all the images in the category.

Thank you. --Speggle22 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

✓  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Backlogged and receiving very little participation?[edit]

The "Deletion requests" process seems to have very little or no participation in many subpages. Also, it's backlogged. Furthermore, mass-nomination is sometimes, occasionally or rarely used but not often. Good examples are the following log date pages:

Last year, at English Wikipedia, PROD (7-day uncontested deletion process) was extended from articles to files. If Commons can't allow another 7-day deletion process, almost similar to {{subst:npd}} and {{subst:nsd}} but different from them, what else can be done about the backlogging and participation issues? George Ho (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC); replaced links, 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The point being made here seems obscure, not helped by the archive links not showing a problem. What is the proposal? -- (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for being less clear, . I just am concerned about subpages receiving less attention than they need. I've not known why there have been very few or no comments at many subpages, especially seen at Commons:Deletion requests/2018/03. Are people less interested in matters related to images? Is copyright not in people's best interests? Regardless, and nevertheless, I can think of the below proposals to resolve the huge backlogging of the process and very little participation:
Plan A: 7-day or 14-day uncontested deletion process similar to en.WP's PROD
Plan B: Inviting others at various wikis to participate, but then I figured that notifying others would be clutter
Plan C: If neither of the above would work, maybe re-discuss the Deletion Requests process at one of Village pump venues for more attention. That way, others can collaborate build a proper idea and proposal to have the process reformed.
Plan D: ...Can't think one at the moment
Thoughts about the plans? George Ho (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I would be against an automatic PROD-equivalent. I would support a "DR plus" procedure where, as with case law, a ruling in a DR sets a referenceable default for speedy deletions to be allowed in identical circumstances, effectively extending the DR+ to these future cases. Such "case law" DRs would have to have sufficient participation to establish a consensus. This sort-of-happens already, for example with refining how de minimis is interpreted, however our current system for logging cases and encouraging them to be referenced is non-existent.
Areas where a case law approach would help are the classics of de minimis, 'unknown' vs. 'anonymous' in different countries, fringe cases for freedom of panorama, fringe cases for derived works and so on.
As with actual case law, they can be superseded and there would need to be a 'higher' process that might change policies and either crystalize case law or override it.-- (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm unsure how "DR+" would solve the backlogging. However, I figured that the process would looks like some sort of more complicated and more bureaucratic version of "speedy delete" process. I'm worried about how a user would be able to search for a subpage as a good precedent to nominate an image for deletion. Or maybe I don't know how your idea would turn out. That's my opinion. George Ho (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
We would follow the model of case law, new DR+ cases would be identified, perhaps numbered, and easily referenced from a central list. DR wikilawyers would be able to quickly link to them and discuss whether the DR in hand were sufficiently similar to the standard case. -- (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable about the "DR+", but please feel free to build it, have others collaborate the process-building, and/or propose it at VP Proposal subpage if you like. George Ho (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am also against an automatic PROD-equivalent. The only solution to the backlog is more (active) admins (as I have been saying for 10 years). Regards, Yann (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Having more very active administrators isn't the only solution. There are other ways, though I guess PROD-equivalent won't receive much support then. By the way, making admins more active than now would burden a lot of admins' time and health, wouldn't it? George Ho (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Simple: Give the deletion button to a group of trusted non-admins. They should only delete images from what we used to call Category:Unused personal files. (These can have a special log, proposed DRs or without proposals. A special "soon-to-delete cat" perhaps. Find a practical solution.) An admin would be in charge to review their deletions -not immediately, whenever possible-

and make corrections in case of need. This will also serve as a test case for some admin candidacy pre-candidates. Looks simple from outside but I'm sure somebody will tell me something I don't know, therefore missed. (BTW don't count on me for such a job. :) --E4024 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

More simple : those trusted non-admins should be candidate to the admin status. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Want to delete File[edit]

I want to delete a File:Koch Metro logo.jpg. Can anyone do it. Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jinoytommanjaly: Hi,
Why do you want to delete it? I don't see any issue with this file. The right way to ask for a deletion is to add a {{delete}} template in the description, and to specify a reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Actually I want to replace .jpg file into .png file. Because it is not possible, I have uploaded another file with .png. That the reason for request.-Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
✓  Done Yann (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete previous upload[edit]

A previous version of File:Al Fujimori.jpg needs to be deleted, it is a copyright infringement. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/76/20130616072603%21Al_Fujimori.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FB90:95C5:5754:39F3:C66E:35C3:3CCE (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

✓  Done Yann (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Help Requested[edit]

  • Recently, when I searching for files, I find File:Phan Van Khai 2005.jpg, which claims under a US federal PD but was actually come from a state government agency, which commited license laundering. To make the thing more complicated, the origin source page was deleted by the webmaster.
  • Therefore, I nominated the file for Deletion, but was challenged by the uploader. I also sent email to the webmaster according to their copyright policy, but nobody replied me since 2018-03-21.
  • What should I do next? 廣九直通車 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Commented on DR. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    !voted there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Reject all Copyright Allegations on recent image[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Holloway_E.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raf.png

Please change this to regular delete request, i believe this speedy deletion request was too adrupt and did not give any chance to explain...the person who put that there did not explain is clearly or show proof that it was copyrighted.

The concern that the tag should be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

BusriderSF2015 (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just settle this right now since you're blatantly lying. THIS is one of the images you uploaded. THIS is a low quality screenshot from the PPV. Nice try, though. Did you think nobody would notice? TBMNY (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not same the screenshot you just uploaded is different (which is very recent from you) was streched while mines was first taken by Iphone at event.BusriderSF2015 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's very clearly the same photo, yours was just a crop. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete previous version[edit]

I'd like to request deletion of the July 1, 2017 previous version of these two files: File:David_Visentin.jpg and File:Hilary Farr.jpg. I don't recall why I didn't crop the images before uploading them. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)