Commons talk:Undeletion requests

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

Proposal to change Commons:Undeletion requests to Commons:Deletion review[edit]

See Commons:Village_pump#Proposal_to_change_Commons:Undeletion_requests_to_Commons:Deletion_review. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is archiving working?[edit]

DRBot has not moved any closed requests to the archives since June 13. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing threads[edit]

I've noticed that there are a few threads that have been up for a very long time. The page is getting quite long... Should threads that haven't been edited for X amount of days be archived...? "this page is 138 kilobytes long. Some older browsers may have trouble editing pages longer than 32 kilobytes." Killiondude (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to avoid having the same conversation over and over[edit]

It seems to me that we should be accumulating a list of images that are useful, are likely to be seen as "sexual", and whose status can only be worked out once we have consensus on larger issues. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Fran Rogers[edit]

User:Fran Rogers have deleted more than 150 images, many of them high-quality bondage pictures with an educational value for the subject bondage. Is it reasonable that we should have to devote days to go through the pictures and nominate them here? He acted in total without regard to the guidelines and consensus. The only reasonable thing to do is to undelete all the images he deleted. There is no reason to trust his discretion here.--Ankara (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur, we can't possibly have 150 undeletion requests when we can't even view the images anymore. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Since May 6" section heading[edit]

Is the "Since May 6" section heading still necessary> The rush of undeletion requests related to the out-of-process speedy deletion of sexual content in early May seems to have subsided. Black Falcon (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice[edit]

{{editprotected}}

People are obviously failing to read the instructions, so let's put them in a more prominent place. Please insert the following on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/Editnotice (and feel free to add other languages):

{{Multilingual description
|en=When adding a request:
# Make sure you are '''[[Special:UserLogin|logged in]]''' if you have an account at Commons
# Use a descriptive '''subject/headline,''' such as <code><nowiki>[[:File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg]]</nowiki></code>
# '''Identify''' the file(s) in question if you didn't already do it in the subject/headline
# State the '''reasons''' for the request
# '''[[:en:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Sign]]''' and date your request using four tilde characters (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>)
|sv=När du skriver en begäran:
# Försäkra dig om att du är '''[[Special:UserLogin|inloggad]]''' om du har ett konto på Commons
# Ange ett beskrivande '''ämne/rubrik,''' såsom <code><nowiki>[[:File:Namnet på filen.jpg]]</nowiki></code>
# '''Identifiera''' filen eller filerna om du inte redan gjort det i ämnet/rubriken
# '''Motivera''' begäran
# '''[[:sv:Wikipedia:Signera diskussionsinlägg|Signera]]''' och datera begäran genom att använda fyra tildetecken (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>)
}}

LX (talk, contribs) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You don’t need an admin to create a page. You can do it yourself. --Mormegil (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Editnotice#Other namespaces led me to believe that only administrators could create editnotices outside one's own user and user talk spaces. Are the settings on Commons different? I tried creating the page, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I then read the documentation a bit more, and it tells me the right place for the editnotice should be Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. However, Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/ suggests that it might be Template:Editnotices/Pages/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (with an extra s). Neither of these seem to have worked, though. LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You can see the namespaces, where it is enabled here. --Leyo 10:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Aah, I think I see. We don't have some of the template magic that English Wikipedia has. So the right place is MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Undeletion requests-Current requests? LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No action here for over a month, so here we go again:

{{editprotected}}

Please add the text above to MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Undeletion requests-Current requests and delete my failed attempts at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/Editnotice, Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests and Template:Editnotices/Pages/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. LX (talk, contribs) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done (But I don’t like the MLD too much, if you use another language, all versions are expanded by default, I think.) --Mormegil (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Finally, it works. Thanks to Leyo for nudging me in the right direction as well. I'm also a little ambivalent about the MLD, but I don't think there is a better alternative at the moment (that is, until bugzilla:11267 gets resolved). Hopefully we can get enough translation added that it gets it right for most people. So far this year, most non-English requests have been in Spanish, so that translation should be a priority. LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot issue?[edit]

Seems to be a problem with archiving the discussions? Bad enough when stuff doesn't get closed but when it gets closed and doesn't get archived...:) --Herby talk thyme 17:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think someone turned off DRBot in early December because it was doing weird stuff to the regular deletion requests... closing multiple times and things. Hopefully someone can fix it, or maybe turn on just the Undeletion request part... Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be good/great actually! --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Bryan fixed it, yay. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Trujillo_upao[edit]

I guess must be undelate the file Trujillo_upao cause is one file that's taken for any purpose use.Thanks. eagle_c5

File by AssassinsCreed[edit]

Why these images have been deleted?

  1. File:Goran Ivanišević 1989.jpg
  2. File:Goran Ivanišević 2006.jpg
  3. File:Guillermo Coria US Open 2003.jpg

There aren't copyright violations as you can see here:

--AssassinsCreed (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The files are available under a license limited for non-commercial use only (the -NC tag in the CC descriptor, shown as the Cc-nc.svg icon). Such license is not acceptable on Commons. See Commons:Licensing for detailed explanation. --Mormegil (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sub pages[edit]

While I realize undeletion discussions do not get very long, I think there would be benefit if subpage structure similar to COM:DEL is used to handle undeletion requests. Issues discussed before would be available in newer discussions. Also while individually these discussions are fairly short, collectively they make the page difficult to follow or lead to hasty archiving. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — But you'll have to tell DRBot to respect the new structure. And its operator is not here since a while. -- RE rillke questions? 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportKrinkletalk 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the problem description, but manually creating a subpage and listing it properly is going to be too complicated for the large number of users posting here who don't even manage to sign their entries or name the files they want undeleted. LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
We could support them with a script -- like creating deletion requests. Script can verify that a file has been deleted and sign the posting. -- RE rillke questions? 18:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If that's done, I'm all for it, but I think that needs to be up and running, translated and tested before we make the change. LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A first proposal is available. A dialog should pop-up. Of course, the reason should be parsed like it is done for the deletion requests. The dialog could be started by any element on the page; I suggest making a button. -- RE rillke questions? 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Parsing the reason is now also done. What else needs to be implemented before we can run it/ add a button to the front page? Load UndeletionRequester -- RE rillke questions? 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
How to enable i18n? Using a hidden template that anyone can translate that will be transcluded or converting into a gadget and waiting until we get really-easy-translation for gadgets? -- RE rillke questions? 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the idea, but it's a lot of work. The archive pages don't even have the table of contents visible so it is often hard to find archived discussions now. A script helper to add a new file for deletion would be great -- it could be set up now to simply add a new section with the filename as the section header, then the code could be switched once a new scheme is set up and tested. DRBot needs to be changed quite a bit; that has probably been the biggest impediment. But hopefully it would be similar to the regular deletion requests, which the bot already handles. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Instruction length[edit]

The instructions in English (other languages are quite a bit shorter) are getting quite long (and I've just added two short paragraphs about temporary undeletion). I wonder if we can't split or collapse some of this content.

  1. For instance, do the instructions to administrators need to be there? Couldn't that be a separate page - or perhaps made adminonly using CSS?
  2. And the first sections make me think of en:Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?; maybe a similar essay would be a useful thing, and a big notice here to go read it could replace those sections.
  3. Finally, I wonder if we really need to transclude {{undeletion requests/fair use project list}}. It's not necessarily up-to-date anyway, so maybe linking to Meta would be enough... or else linking to it should do, without transcluding it. Or as another option: collapsing it.

Rd232 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. Already done by Rillke in March. I don't see it (except in the ToC).
  2. I disagree with removing the section; it's not that long, and it's important. I wouldn't mind a link to a longer explanation, though.
  3. I agree with, and I think the whole temporary undeletion section is too long overall. It's not the most common scenario. LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tool feedback[edit]

First feedback here, please -- RE rillke questions? 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

When creating the edit summary for the new section, could you make it a clickable link? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done - Some users may have an old version of the script in their cache. -- Rillke(q?) 11:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

JFYI, the script does not automatically post requests from Upload Wizard (UpWiz). If UpWiz finds that a file was previously deleted it throws an unknown warning (bugzilla:38426) and because there were too many questions about that on Commons:Help desk, I added an observer (jQuery does not call it listener) for Ajax-Events. If it finds such a warning, it adds a button to UpWiz allowing to post an undeletion requests with the files the error occurred on. Perhaps there should be some introductory comments about undeletion requests.

I feel that there many invalid/unsuccessful requests. Should the tool attempt to give advice why each file was deleted/ how to challenge that/ how to proceed or is there something it could do? Let me know, please. Regards -- Rillke(q?) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It could possibly mention that photos already published on the internet usually need to follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, i.e. having the copyright owner send a direct email, rather than posting a request on this page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ciara BMA 2004[edit]

Why was this deleted? File:Ciara BMA 2004.jpg I found it on MSN's website and don't think it is a copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPQzy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2012‎ (UTC)

It is a copyright violation BECAUSE you found it on MSN. Yann (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Virtually everything you find online (or in a newspaper, etc.) is copyrighted. We welcome photos here, but only if the author has released them into the public domain or under a free license - see Commons:Licensing for more. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Undelete in YYYY categories[edit]

These seem like they will be very useful as time passes. Is there any good way to sort a deletion that can be undeleted at an unknown time? I'm thinking, for example, of cases where there is a copyright term such as 50 or 70 years pma but the creator is still alive. So we could say "no sooner than 2083" (in the case of 70 years pma), but of course it might last beyond that. At the very least, sorting such files into a category like "Undeletion date unknown" would group deletion discussions where the deleted files are otherwise within scope and might someday be useable. Or it might be made more useful by limiting it to cases where the creator is known and is still alive as of the deletion discussion/last review. That way future reviewers would already have the name of the creator from the deletion discussion (meaning that any user -- not just admins -- could investigate) and would merely need to check from time to time to see if the creator has died, and if so they could put it into the appropriate year-specific undeletion category. This might take the form of "Category:Undeletion date unknown, creator alive as of YYYY" or something like that. cmadler (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It would have to be a system that was easily modifiable, though, since copyright laws have a tendency to be extended, so even when we "know" that copyright will expire in a certain year, we don't really know that. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'll be well impressed if Commons still exists when work by people currently alive goes out of copyright...! But Cmadler's category suggestion seems simple enough. An alternative would be to give eg Category:Undelete in 2083 a subcategory, Category:Undelete date unknown, no earlier than 2083, so come 2083 at the latest (could be done earlier of course) that category can be reviewed for exact undelete dates. This way would accommodate different pma lengths slightly better (but as I said, given how far in the future that is, I'm not sure it matters). Rd232 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Api-error-duplicate-archive[edit]

2012-08-16 Upload Wizard duplicate-archive-error.png

Should this message include a link to this page (Commons:Undeletion requests)? The message is displayed on files that are attempted to upload with UploadWizard but were deleted before. -- Rillke(q?) 22:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It might seem like an intuitive suggestion, but In 99% of cases (or more), such files should not be undeleted, and I don't think this page needs even more unfounded requests. It would be more helpful to present the deletion log (I'm guessing "another file" links to it, but that's probably not obvious enough for many users). LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"another file" opens a dialog which contains a link to the deleted page. On this page, there is the usual excerpt from the log and "there is no such file on this wiki but you can upload one", which should, I think, never be done, but instead an undeletion request could be started. -- 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Undelete my file, I can't technically re-upload it[edit]

Follow-up on Commons:Help desk#Failed Upload Wizard

Hey. One of my uploads (this one) has just been deleted by I-don't-know-which circumstances or decision (couldn't find the discussion page to support the deletion. A mistaken bot generation maybe?) and my attempt to reupload it to restore the gallery results in the Upload Wizard saying "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted", and won't allow me proceed. Any hint what error or logic effectuates this. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For the file you mentioned, you need permission from the creators of the images on the T-Shirts. The cartoon and the photo are likely covered by copyright. One could argue that each of them is de minis but if you like to discuss this in detail, please start an undeletion request. This is the talk page for contents of Commons:Undeletion requests. -- Rillke(q?) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Where then should I post that request? Orrlingtalk 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh~, got it. thanx. Orrlingtalk 19:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Where to Appeal?[edit]

Here the discussion was ended without allowing to answer me. Where can I appeal against and to reopen the discussion? -- Portolanero (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My request to the Toronto Public Library[edit]

At Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Fire Hall, Etobicoke, Royal York Road, s.e. cor. Tenby St. -a.jpg it was suggested someone should contact the Toronto Public Library, requesting more information be sent to OTRS. I used their "contact us" to leave this message. Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a wikimedia commons contributor. It is a sibling project to the wikipedia. I have uploaded some images that were donated to your collection by James Victor Salmon.
Mr Salmon donated many images to your collection, and they are all marked "public domain".
Another more senior contributor deleted two of those images, asserting that they thought the images were not freely licensed, pointing to your terms and conditions page. http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/digital-archive/license.jsp
We only use images that are under a license that allows our readers to freely re-use them for any purpose -- including commercial works. That more senior contributor's interpretation of your terms and conditions page was that it still tried to impose conditions on your readers, in particularly prohibiting commercial use.
When I tried, and failed, to convince them that they had misinterpreted your terms and conditions page I requested a review of their decision. Other contributors are weighing in now. Most seem to agree that pictures Salmon took would be in the public domain in Canada, simply due to their age, as he died in 1958, and, in 1958, copyright expired 50 years after the date of the author.
However, some of those contributors raised the issue that while the images were considered public domain in Canada, they might not be public domain in the USA, where the servers are located.
They requested that I try and check with staff at the TPL -- did the images Mr Salmon donated become public domain because it has been more than 50 years since he died? Or did Mr Salmon explicitly place the images in the public domain when he made the donation?
If it is the former, we can't use the images. If it is the latter we can use them.
So, if Mr Salmon explicitly placed the images in the public domain when he made the donation, could you send an email, saying so, from the tpl domain, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ?
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org is not my email address it is the address of a team of senior contributors here who are charged with the responsibility to handle and track correspondence with outsiders using a "one ticket system" that preserves the outsiders confidentiality. I am going to put tracking the confirmation in their hands.
Thanks!

File:Celje center 2006.JPG[edit]

I am author of file and inscription of File:Celje center 2006.JPG. Please, let you undelete it.--Stebunik (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Where did my request go?[edit]

I made an undeletion request a couple of days ago (it's in the log). But I can't now see it in current requests. Where has it gone? Johnmperry (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been archived. In the Archives section of Commons:Undeletion requests, there's a search box. If you search for Daanbantayan Map.jpg there, you'll find the archived entry. LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The source was also only provided vaguely. It must be a link pointing to the source page which a trusted person at Commons can confirm. You can provide it here, and I will do the necessary steps, including restoring the map if I am convinced that it is really a work of the government. -- Rillke(q?) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Borrado de imágenes[edit]

Please continue at →Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Borrado de imágenes -- Rillke(q?) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing tags[edit]

I'm using mobile view and {{udelh}} peeks above the collapsed section headers (as they should, because the template is in fact above the section heading). Also when editing section(s) above a closed section, {{udelh}} is visible at the bottom of the edit box, which risks getting inadvertently deleted at the very worst, but always increases the spacing between the template and section heading. Would it be feasible to put {{udelh}} under the section heading in the future? Would User:DRBot be able to recognise the new pattern in archiving closed discussions? --O (висчвын) 07:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Cango Caves, Oudtshoorn, Western Cape 10.JPG Deletion?[edit]

Hi I got notification re 5 of my photos that is considered for deletion I have no idea why as I took it myself

5 of my photos have been put up for deletion like this This is really no right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottelme (talk • contribs)

The file above was deleted a year ago at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cango Caves, Oudtshoorn, Western Cape 10.JPG. I can't see the photo but it was deleted as being out of scope, which usually happens because they are personal snapshots (i.e. photos of yourself, or friends, that kind of thing). This is the talk page for undeletion requests though, not an actual undeletion request -- add your request to the project page here if you think those photos are indeed in scope. Your only active issue is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murray's Bay Harbour, Robben Island, which is still ongoing. Although you took the photos yourselves, sometimes photos can be "derivative works" of another work of art depicted in the photo, and subject to the permission of the copyright owner of that work. See Commons:Freedom of panorama for discussion of that topic. However, since they have not been deleted yet, this is not the forum -- you can add remarks to the deletion discussion. As it happens, I think most of the photos on that deletion request are OK, but there are a couple which are problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Restore requests following Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA[edit]

I am proposing that restore requests following on from Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA should remain open for at least 24 hours to allow for the discussion envisaged by the close of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. The last one was open for just 12 mins which does not give time for a review or to check if indeed the files needed the URAA to be copyright in the US. For the avoidance of doubt this wait period would not preclude temporary restores to help with the discussion. LGA talkedits 10:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. LGA talkedits 10:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)