Commons talk:Deletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, 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.

Close a Dr[edit]

Will someone please close the following Dr? [1] I was the original requester, and figured out how to submit a name change instead. Atsme (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Marcus. 06:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please delete this image[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wiki Commons and I edited a Wiki Commons image and uploaded it, but the attribution is incorrect. Could the image please be removed?

Thank you, dmotley — Preceding unsigned comment added by dmotley (talk • contribs)

I don't see the attribution error, the missing r in orthographic could be fixed by {{rename}}. But uploading a PNG derived from an SVG here is rather lame, you can suggest a {{delete}}. Click on the template names (rename + delete) to get some usage info. Then go to your link File:Kashmir Othographic Projection.png, click edit, insert one of {{rename}} or {{delete}}, and follow the instructions. The whole procedure takes less than one hour when you do it the first time, later it will be less than five minutes. And read the lines at the top of this page clearly stating that this page is not for deletion requests. Check out the Help desk for further questions, the folks there are friendly. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing without rationale[edit]

How are administrators expected to close DRs when rationales have given to keep according to commons policies? I don't know if there are detailed written rules, but in an scope case, admins should close according to consensus or at least give a clear rationale to say that keeping the files is evidently against current policy.

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Luis manuel sanchez palacios Jameslwoodward closed even without leaving any reason. I acknowledge that it is a bordeline case and that outcome should be debatable, but DRs are to disucuss reasons and get a consensus, not to speedydelete when reasons to keep have been given.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I repeat notification because I think it didn't work.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Before complaining that a user has not responded to your ping, you should first look at the user's talk page -- this is an important holiday week in the United States and many USA editors, including me, will not be available as regularly as usual.
Commons has 25 Admins who do 90% of the work, which includes deleting about 1,700 pages every day. Of necessity, we work very fast. When we close a DR that appears to be completely routine, with a good explanation in the nomination, we don't spend the time necessary to say something like -- "I agree with the nomination". That leaves more time to give good explanations when they are needed.
As for consensus, please remember that DRs are not votes and the closing Admin is, by policy, completely free to close a DR against consensus if he feels that consensus is incorrect. In this case however, there was one voice (you) speaking for keep and two (INC and me) for delete, so the deletion was entirely in accordance with the consensus. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Nobody has complained about you not responding. Your claim about complaining seems just a a try to lead the discussion out of its issue. As you see in my signatures I just repeated the ping one minute after my first ping because I thought first ping didn't work - e.g. it didn't produce a notification (you can check page history if you want to think why did I supposed first ping didn't work). If I was right, you should have gotten just one notification - if I wasn't, you should have gotten two notifications one minute apart. Do you expect me to be stupid enough to complain because you didn't answer in one minute?
And about deletion request: I know admins have a lot of work closing deletion requests and doing other important things, I know a DR is not a vote, and I know that in that DR there were reasons in both sides, so its outcome could be against my opinion. Although, DR exist to gather community opinions and those opinions should be taken into account when closing the DR. Taking them into account doesn't necessarily agree with them, but at least it should mean saying why you don't agree with them. If admins are going to just ignore anything editors say, we could get rid of the whole DR process and use speedydelete for everything.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I have a very poor Internet connection here and was working on many things at once because they took so long to load. I did not notice that your two pings were a minute apart. Only the recipient can see a notification, so you would never see a ping you gave me.
As for the closure, again, I see little point in the closing Admin saying "I agree with the nomination" or words like that. The question of in or out of scope is entirely subjective, so what would you like me to say -- "I think the images are out of scope"? They were poor technically and therefore very unlikely to be used by anyone on or off WMF. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Image files containing article drafts[edit]

I don't know how image files are to be handled that contain whole article drafts as file description. Applies to

--Achim (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of the article is not in itself a reason for deletion, but it may be a good indication that there are other problems. I have tagged each of these with {{delete}} for different reasons. If any of these images had been both in scope and OK for copyright, then I would have just removed all of the article except a sentence or two and left them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete a version of a file[edit]

Can a version of a file be deleted? I uploaded a new version of an SVG file only to realize that was several times larger in size than the previous version. Several layers that contain copyrighted material (screenshots of maps) are contained in the file, although those layers were hidden, so the PNG preview doesn't show any of those copyrighted files. Someone would have to download the file, open it in a vector image program, and find out how to open the hidden layers. I stripped the file of the screenshots and uploaded a new version of the file.

The file is File:Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 flight plan.svg, version 19:44, 18 January 2015. You can tell it's 2.68 MB compared to about 690MB for the other versions of the file. This is an important file, so it doesn't seem appropriate to nominate the file itself for deletion.

There are no instructions on this page or Commons:Deletion policy concerning deletion of a specific version of a file. Everything concerning deletion discusses the deletion of files. If it is possible to delete a specific version, then that should be mentioned on one of the policy pages. AHeneen (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done I have removed the offending version. The procedure is discussed at Commons:Revision deletion which is part of the list at the bottom of Commons:Deletion policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)