Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 4

Close a Dr

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

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? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kashmir_Othographic_Projection.png

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

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

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

• File:Cyriel Camiel Lesage 1890-1916.jpg
• File:Zuster Ernestine Declercq te Anzegem.jpg
• File:Judith Declercq.jpg

--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

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)

If these files can be stopped from deletion

three reference :1 File:Irfan_01.jpg, 2 File:Irfan_02.jpg, 3 File:Irfan Hussain.jpg

Hello Editors, yes it is obvious that Irfan Hussain died in 1999, and we claimed the image as "Own work / collection" (as standard wording) but in the description very well clearly written, when and by whom it is created (obviously Cartoon By Irfan Hussain). Here let us describe further detail which we cant able to mention here. Cartoonist Irfan Hussain and Shekhar Gurera both were close friends and were colleague in same publications, The Pioneer in between 1991-1997 and most of the original art-works (cartoons) drawn while being in that publication are preserved collectively and now with Mr Gurera. Since we are here to preserve proper and authentic information at wikipedia so while knowing the facts of proper source of contents about the person who has been died in 1999, we contacted Mr Gurera to help us. On request and assurance of proper use of Irfan's work, Mr Gurera provided us and allowed us the scanned copies from the original for the cause. We think and expect that team will soften their norms in this particular situation and will rethink about the Commons:Deletion requests. Regards "For Irfan Hussain" --Gurera (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the top of this talk page tries to say that this talk page is unsuited for specific files and their deletion or undeletion. Presumably your language isn't covered, and that should be fixed. Please add (copy) your comment here and your comments on your talk page to the three relevant deletion debates:

1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Irfan_02.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Irfan_01.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Irfan_Hussain.jpg

Disclaimer, I haven't checked what this is about, I only know that this talk page here is not the place to discuss it. The user closing those deletion requests later as delete or keep would never know what you have written here. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

commenting after decision

It looks like it is not wanted to further comment on a closed DR-page itself. Contrariwise when opening the talkpage, it always says "If you would like to comment on this deletion request, please use the subject page". So what? --Itu (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Doing nothing? --Leyo 09:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are reasonable objections, contact the closing admin. --Krd 09:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Whats the problem with not declaring contradictiony rules?

And why not having further comments on the DR-page? The debate has its dedicated blue box, the page itself is not locked and there's a lot of free white space below. --Itu (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The real problem is that a user might make a comment, expecting a response. We have several hundred thousand archived DRs (maybe as many as a million or more) -- making a comment on one is writing into a black hole -- no one is likely to see it. Also, post closing commenters often insert text into the DR, not in the space below, and that can be misleading if anyone refers to it later. Best to forbid any comments at all. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Itu is talking about DR closure rants commentary like the one he's made here.    FDMS  4    13:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1. There is a simple solution in common use on many wikis. A comment after close either sits there, outside the close template, or is moved to the attached Talk page. If it does any harm, the user should be warned on their talk page. Otherwise, it's harmless. As part of the warning, the user should be advised as Jim has pointed out. It isn't a black hole, though, those who commented on the page may get pinged in their watchlist.
2. Yes, contacting the closer is step 1, if one thinks something is in error. I don't think there is clear guidance on this made readily available to users, because I see many users floundering over this. Not knowing what to do, thinking something was wrong, they get upset, and when they are upset, what ought to be a question, a request for help, becomes an accusation. Happens all the time.
3. Itu's comment about "use the subject page" makes no sense to me. What's he talking about? I see no such message, opening up a Commons talk/Deletion Requests/[etc.) page. --Abd (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Group/Commons talk:Deletion requests.    FDMS  4    06:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

THis is the first time I am making a deletion request.

On the Wikimedia Commons page named, "Telephone" there are two images that look almost exactly the same, although it has different captions, I do not think those caption summaries are aducate enough to state that there should be two images, since the caption about the other image talks about a base of where the object is standing on, but in the other image the base is clearly visible. In the other one the description states about the object, but the object can also be clearly be seen in the other image. I do not know which one I should place a deletion request on, and how to put a deletion request on it, but, I think that at least one of these images that look like almost so similar should be deleted. Here are the links too those two images I am talking about.  : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Telephone#/media/File:MyPicturephone_010_-AT%26T_Picturephone_Mod_II_-front_view-.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Telephone#/media/File:MyPicturephone_011_-AT%26T_Picturephone_Mod_II_-front_upper_quarter_view-.jpg . Thank you in advance to anyone that can help me out over here. From, the very friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) .  :) :D

@Doorknob747: We don't usually delete files just because they are similar (see Commons:Deletion policy for valid reasons for deleting a file). That's because we want to give people the choice of which one to use. Someone might like the first one better, someone else may prefer the other one. And since files are not actually deleted but just hidden from public access, deleting one wouldn't even free up storage space. But if you think that one of the images should be removed from the gallery page Telephone, just edit the page and remove the image's file name, leaving a message in the edit summary that explains why you did it. You don't need a formal deletion request for that. Hope that helps? --El Grafo (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. From, the friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 😃.

Please split the Seoul Disaster and Fire Dpt (~) off

Commons:Deletion_requests/2015/07/17 is super bloated with them seeing there are dozens of batches and hundreds of files listed on the same page. Template transclusion limit must be exceeded by multiples, and editing any other cases on the page is really unwieldy not only therefore but also because my smartphone browser nearly crashes just loading the giant page. Considering this, I'm asking other admins' opinion on splitting the Seoul case onto a separate subpage. --Pitke (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete a gallery?

Deleting a gallery is not discussed on the instructions, so I'll post here and hope for the best. AIM-9_Sidewinder is sitting on the same link as the AIM-9 Sidewinder category, which has all of those images and many more. This means that links to the common from the Wiki point to the wrong thing. There seems to be no reason to have the page, I suspect its simply historical. Remove? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I've created the request for you at Commons:Deletion requests/AIM-9 Sidewinder. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks matt! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete it please.

File:Gemtdwc3.jpg.tiff

delete it. i don't even care about trying to fight for my own work anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yihengsong (talk • contribs)

Unless you created the game, seems like a pretty clear copyvio to me. Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw the railroads you took pictures of. Didn't know you build the railways. The image was in a public domain like your images. Don't be rude and freaking understand, no one bother asking me before sending the first wave of warnings when I went ahead and post a talk about it, instantly got more warnings. Yihengsong (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yihengsong, the difference between Warcraft and railways is that Warcraft is copyrighted, railways cannot be copyrighted - there's very little scope for creativity when designing one. We take copyright seriously here, and while I do not doubt you created the image, you most certainly do not hold the copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've messed up

Somehow I've managed to mess up Commons:Deletion requests/2016/01/12. An extra template has been introduced to the page, but I'm unable to figure out how to remove it. It could well be that I've done something wrong in one (or more) of the underlying subpages. I guess I have got lost in the template jungle.
Is there someone who could fix my mess and maybe explain to me where I went wrong? Thank you! 3s (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This image published at flickr please do not delete this public property. https://www.flickr.com/photos/138736894@N03/24416808391/in/shares-43E71S/

Delete image

Very confused by the request procedure, please get rid of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planet-Nine-at-perihelion.png Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please delete following images I made

Please delete the images "Window with curtain.png" and "Window with curtain variation.png" because the perspective of the depth of the window is not correct. Thank you very much.

-- Oxana59 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oxana59: Please create a deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please Restore This file File:Planets2013 km.jpg

Please, restore it again that work base on File:Planets2013.jpg of Wikimedia Commons by Source File:Planets2008.jpg the Author is WP. The work, I did translate from English to Khmer. (Nisetpdajsankha (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC))

Please make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. --Leyo 23:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting this image deleted

• Found this image here in commons. I checked the Jane's article and it says that OFB has the original copyright of the image. Ominae (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Somebody nominated it for deletion. This talk page here SHALL NOT be used for individual issues, as noted at the top with better suggestions. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Image for deletion is clicked by me.

Hi,

I strongly disagree with the deletion of the File:Let_the_mind_be_clear_of_all_thoughts_and_merge_into_expansive_existence.jpg as these images are clicked by me. Please refer to the similar image uploaded by me. File:Buildings at Rishi Chaitanya Ashram.jpg and website from where I have shared these.

http://www.gurumaa.com/ashram/ashram-rishi-chaitanya-ashram-in-india

please compare the images and take decisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilchaudhary (talk • contribs) 11:10, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

I note this. If you are the photographer of those images, please release the images with an appropriate licence by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. If not please arrange for the photographer to do the same. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The image has been copied from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=600771216626238&set=pb.100000800946838.-2207520000.1467899421.&type=3&theater the source was also shared with you from the facebook verified page of Anandmurti Gurumaa. https://www.facebook.com/AnandmurtiGurumaa/photos/a.10154168728409395.1073741827.378788264394/10154225160549395/?type=3&theater and the official website is www.gurumaa.com I have the rights to use the Images. The email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org will be shared shortly from info@gurumaa.com (The official email id of the website) Salilchaudhary (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

please delete this file

File:NLS_Haig_-_Troops_moving_up_at_eventide_-_men_of_a_Yorkshire_regiment_on_the_march.jpg It's a very badly uprezed version of: File:NLS_Haig_-_Troops_moving_up_at_eventide_-_men_of_a_Yorkshire_regiment_on_the_march.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 73.173.188.63 (talk) 13:31, 04 October 2016 (UTC)

UNAMGoogle.jpg - Facebook w/wo

File:UNAMGoogle.jpg [2] contains the Facebook logo and watermark. File:WomenUNAM.jpg is a similar photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortillovsky (talk • contribs)

I nominated all the images uploaded by the uploader of File:UNAMGoogle.jpg. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed signing my previous message. Cheers. Tortillovsky (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)--- (Project page[3])

File:HUN Kemecse Címer.svg

I would like to ask for delete the file:

• File:HUN Kemecse Címer.svg

(to make free the name for the proper File:HUN Kemecse Címer1.svg).

The uploader also accepted it, see User talk:Kaboldy#File:HUN Kemecse Címer.svg and User talk:Ato 01#File:HUN Kemecse Címer.svg. Thank you in advance!

-- ato (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagged the file for speedy deletion per G7. Next time, please use {{Speedy}} or {{SD|G7}} (for author's deletion request). Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominator closure of deletions

Not a policy nor guideline

Although Fæ has implemented the proposed text to this page, I noticed that this page is currently not a guideline nor a policy, making this technically invalid. We should first have a discussion whether this should be a guideline or a policy, before enforcing this. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it really matter? This isn't policy, this is guidance on what the community expects of DR closures. Storkk (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This page illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow. Imho {{Guideline}} should be added, as far i know to add guideline template, in perfectly uncontroversial cases, no formal RFC is needed (for the policy template a RFC is needed definitively). Imho it is just a question of formality. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing deletion nominations early

I have been noticing that many deletion nominations are closing before the required 7 days posting (see for example this one). It is policy that: "requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier."

Admins, please adhere to this rule in fairness to the deletion process. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Unlike AFD (at EN) there's tons and tons of DRs each day so some do (and should) get closed early, There's a constant and frequent backlog with these so that's probably why they're being closed so early, If an admin looks at the image and agrees it's out of scope then I agree they should be closed early and deleted (And in all fairness not many DRs ever get commented on), We should be thanking those who devote their time to this process not moan over their actions, (IF DR was like AFD then I'd whole heartedly agree but it's not). –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think a backlog should be an excuse for evading process... on the other hand, I have closed scope DRs early by mistake (I think for fewer than 10 files, and at most 1 day early), by clicking the convenience date links and having a brain fart about what day today is. The example given here is different, though. I think it's still probably procedurally OK because the closing rationale adds a copyright concern to the scope issues mentioned by the nominator. A related issue that has been bugging me recently is that many DRs are actually only given 6 days and change from nomination: the day's DR page is declared by the COM:DR links to be "open season" 6 days after the end of the day. Storkk (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Let's also add that many RfD's should be actually speedy deletion requests. Thus I understand why many admins close them after 1 day or less with the deletion. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Agreed, "fairness" should not require waiting the full 7 days before fulfilling a DR that could reasonably have been speedy. Storkk (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Another one, closed within 1 day! (@Shizhao: see discussion). This one is not an obvious speedy DR. And if it does qualify for speedy, then that should be explained in the closing comments. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that should not have been closed early, as "Unused personal photo, out of scope" is not a reason for speedy deletion. Anyone noticing that happening should gently point out the issue to the admin concerned, and consider posting to AN if the problem persists. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Shizhao usually speedy deleted files uploaded by his Panoramio Upload Bot, which is probably ok according to COM:CSD#G7. The explanations were wrong, though, and I support the sentiment expressed above in general. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy closes

Currently there are no provisions for speedily closing DRs, which causes a bit of confusion (see section above). I'd like to add the following paragraph to the end of "Closing discussions" to match the actual practice:

Deletion requests can be closed before seven days if they fulfill the criteria for speedy deletions and there have been no objections, if the deletion request is disruptive, or if a deletion request is reopened and no new arguments are presented.

The first criteria will exclude files that have been converted from a speedy deletion into a regular DR. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the first part, waiting 7 days is not a problem to solve. The rest is an invalid DR, which is not a real closure, as there is no DR to close. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a real problem as every non-closed DR increases the workload of admins when sifting through new DRs. Therefore, it is already common practice (and covered by COM:SPEEDY.) This whole proposal is just a clarification of current practice over which there was some confusion in the past. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Then better filters or categories should be requested and admins should comply with policy. Early closures are always being contested, and our process makes it highly likely that once deleted it takes significant volunteer time to undelete. Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says nothing about skipping 7 days for a DR. --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, you seem to be quite out of touch with how deletions work. Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion is all about skipping those 7 days. That's the whole point. Early closures are fine per that policy and are hardly ever contested (they happen far more frequently than you seem to be aware of), because they should be (and nearly always are) for non-controversial cases. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It would make no difference if, while under DR by user A, user B tagged {{Speedy}} with the exact same reason said in the DR and included in CSD, admin C speedy-deleted the file, and user D close the DR saying the file has been deleted by admin C. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, speedies follow that process, so apply it correctly. DRs take 7 days. There never has been a good reason to mash up the two, doing so loses an opportunity for alternative community views. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Many obvious copyright violations (files copied from social networks, Google Images, various Internet sites, etc.) are tagged with "no permission" or sent to DR while they should be speedy deleted. In these cases, there is no reason to wait for 7 days. The criteria is "Is there any chance that the copyright owner agreed, or might agree, of a free license?" If yes, a proper DR is better. If not, the file should be speedied. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Although I know very well that one must be careful when doing speedy deletion since I already wrongly speedy deleted PD US files, and I am much careful now.. if I find a film poster tagged "own work" and nominated for deletion, I speedy delete it and close the DR with "speedy deleted". Because it will be a lost of time to wait 7 day and that another administrator check again the file while I already open it and that I would have speedy delete it if it was no nominated for deletion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There should be no problem if admins follow the rules. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier than 7 days, and any obvious copyright violation can be speedily deleted anyway, quite outside the DR process. It doesn't really matter whether an admin closes the DR quickly or speedily deletes independently, leaving the DR request to be closed later with the rationale "Already deleted". It's common for obvious copyvios to be converted from speedy-deletion to normal deletion requests, but that doesn't mean that admins have to leave the file up for seven days regardless. Admins should not, though, be closing DRs early for images that are not liable to speedy deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• The policy needs to be clear that DRs must remain open for 7 days. The single exception being that an image which has been non-controversially deleted as a copyright violation, using the separate speedy deletion procedure and criteria, may have a related DR closed early for convenience. However if the deletion is being discussed and was contested in a DR, the DR itself should remain open for 7 days even after the image has been deleted, if necessary and helpful with the case for the image being thought to be a copyright violation being explained. In practice, there are examples where admins are closing DRs early on challenged and potentially incorrect grounds, invariably in these cases the DR should have remained open as the forum for discussion and the presentation of new evidence; such as alternative sources or relevant copyright law. Forcing uploaders or those putting a keep case to take their evidence elsewhere, such as on admin personal talk pages and the UNDEL board is unhelpful and unnecessary when a DR does this for us quite nicely. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out above by many people, such a change to policy and procedures is not feasible. I think there is a perception problem here of speedy closes being controversial. This may be the impression you can get from our regular high-drama moments. But this perception is wrong. For every highly controversial DR there are 10000 uncontroversial ones (and I am not exaggerating). Our processes have to be optimized for these cases, because that is were the real work happens, not a very few outliers. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. This is especially true, since deletions are easily revertible and we have a whole process for that.

    Sorry, undeletions are not easy for novice users, this appears to be a myth. As one of our most experienced contributors, I don't find them easy and I find the UNDEL noticeboard automatically biased to keeping deleted files deleted, given that it means we are overruling an administrator's existing decision and especially as we do not ensure 7 days of discussion or time to present evidence that is possible in a DR. DRs are being closed early out of process, administrators doing that should be strongly encouraged to follow existing policy, not change policy to match these weak practices. Again, as highlighted above, nobody has an issue with deleting copyright violations. If DRs are being closed early in other situations this is unhelpful for Wikimedia Commons and goes against our values of encouraging community engagement in deletion decisions. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I must bring another example. Let's imagine, that A uploads a file, B nominates it for deletion (bad quality, redundant to another file, factual errors etc.) and A agrees to delete, writing that into DR. This is in my opinion totally legitimate reason to close the request speedily. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing said here that contradicts the existing criteria in Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Any administrator is free to speedy delete for those reasons whether or not a deletion request has been created. Deletion requests should run for the full 7 days. In the hypothetical case you raise, where the uploader has requested deletion, there have been many real deletion requests in these exact circumstances where this did require discussion as a speedy deletion may be contested for many reasons, especially when the deletion rationale is on potentially controversial grounds, such as the examples you give of "factual errors" or "bad quality", neither of which would meet the speedy deletion criteria. --Fæ (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to "Corsu"

Please look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fæ; at the left hand side we see an IW link to "Corsu" language. Why? --E4024 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@E4024 and Discasto: Fixed in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Bulk Images to Be Deleted

Hello, Please visit the following page where we created a deletion request for a bulk set of images. Wikipedia legal department was notified.A transcript of our communication with @legal can be provided through them or by sending us an email. All the images to be deleted or made unavailable for distribution under cc 3.0 license by June 1st,2017: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Photographs_by_Dmitri_Markine Dmitri1999 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That deletion request looks improperly formed to me, and you'd have to fix that before we could continue. It's also in the wrong place - please see the headnote above. If WM-legal are involved, we would also have to have them post using an official account to a properly-formed deletion request rather than go on a fishing expedition to locate whoever there has discussed that with you. Please fix all these. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

At least some of the aforementioned communication can be viewed by OTRS volunteers at Template:OTRS ticket. clpo13_(talk) 22:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dmitri1999: Two things: 1) you seem to have misunderstood the section that you quote. It states that you may stop distributing your images at any time, however you cannot force us to. Your license to us is perpetual, and you cannot revoke it: despite the language that you use, because you have licensed your images to us, you have no legal right to force us to stop distributing your images under the free license. You need not of course license any future work that you create. 2) You have not actually nominated anything for deletion. If you still wish to nominate your photos for deletion (with the understanding that your request is unlikely to be fulfilled) please attentively follow the instructions at Commons:Deletion_requests/Mass_deletion_request - and as mentioned there, this can be much simplified by using COM:VFC. Storkk (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu, Clpo13, and Storkk: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Dmitri Markine.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing deletion comments

I think it would be really useful if closing admins, as part of their optional closing comments, would add the link to the offending file's source. I've seen admins do it on occasions. The reason for it is that when uploader's files are delated, they often reupload the same image under a new, or sometimes the same, title. As a reviewer, when checking such new, but previously deleted, images it is sometimes possible to remember or tell where it came from, however with a source link in the deletion comments, it makes finding reuploads so much easier because Tineye and Google images do not always find the image in question. So, instead of starting a deletion nomination it can be speedied at once with the source link. I'm suggesting this as a useful recommendation. Are there any reasons this would not be possible? Ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

New translation item

{{Edit request}}

Please change text (adding lost translation markup):

Click ''Nominate for deletion'' on the page you would like to nominate for deletion ([[Special:MyLanguage/Help:Nominate for deletion|more information on the gadget]]).

to

<translate>Click ''Nominate for deletion'' on the page you would like to nominate for deletion ([[Special:MyLanguage/Help:Nominate for deletion|more information on the gadget]]).</translate>

--Kaganer (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! jdx ^Re: 09:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate request

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)