Last modified on 23 August 2014, at 09:36

Commons:Undeletion requests


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg

This file was deleted as a copyright violation (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg). Huntster said: As the two sources cannot be separated, this composite is non-free and should be deleted. But in metadata of this file you can see line Usage terms: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Metadata refer to the composition (full file), not to the ESO portion only. Otherwise it would be somehow specified in the Usage terms line. /St1995 17:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It is not unreasonable to expect that whatever image editing system the ESO uses would automatically insert that copyright statement, since all ESO works are intended to be freely licensed. Further, ESO's copyright page says "Unless specifically noted", and I would consider a specific mention at the source of a copyright entity (NOAO/AURA/NSF in this case) to be such a specific note. Huntster (t @ c) 22:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't right. "Image editing system" of the ESO wouldn't automatically insert the licence. For example: File:Gamma-ray burst buried in dust (artist’s impression).jpg (this file comes from ESO website, but credit is NAOJ). For this reason in metadata of this file no Usage terms line. /St1995 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. NSF images in PD as a work of the U.S. federal government. See {{PD-USGov-NSF}} /St1995 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Quoting per the fine text at the NOAO website: "NOAO is the national center for ground-based nighttime astronomy in the United States and is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation." This does not make NOAO a part of the NSF, and certainly does not guarantee that the file was created by an NSF employee. And see NOAO's own image copyright page: Huntster (t @ c) 23:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • 1). The first line in the source: The materials created, authored and/or prepared by NOAO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual or creative origin. Use of NOAO/AURA images constitutes acceptance of these guidelines. As I understand it, it says that NOAO/AURA images are copyrighted. But about pictures, created by NOAO/AURA/NSF does not say anything. In authors of this image specified NSF also. It is a guarantee that the file was created by an NSF employee too. 2) If this file is protected by copyright, in its metadata surely there would be marks "CC-BY-SA". And I'm inclined to believe ESO employees. /St1995 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a rather significant assumption to make, saying that they are distinguishing between photographs and graphic images without any evidence. As far as I'm aware, all NOAO images use that credit line "NOAO/AURA/NSF". That is not necessarily saying that the authors are NSF employees...again, an assumption on your part. It is a third assumption that the metadata would reflect anything other than the ESO copyright. Again: "Unless specifically noted" covers this, where an outside organisation that uses all rights reserved is credited alongside ESO. Huntster (t @ c) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

+ Commons:Deletion requests/File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg /St1995 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Reasonable and clear arguments why this file is copyrighted did not shown. Can someone restore this file and close the request? /St1995 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • In your opinion. I still stand by what I've stated, and believe this is a clear-cut example of where our Commons:Precautionary principle should come into play. Huntster (t @ c) 04:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Huntster, have you read this DR? And this? Аnd this? /St1995 13:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I disagree with those closures in the strongest possible fashion. Huntster (t @ c) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And per this reply - your argument (about COM:PRP) is wrong because I sure that nominated file is free-licensed. COM:PRP says: The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. If I had any copyright-doubts on this file, I didn't start this discussion. Also credit ≠ authorship. Regards /St1995 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3790 stamp (Head of Goddess Guanyin, Korea).jpg

This file was deleted as a duplicate of the file file:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3790 stamp (Head of Goddess Guanyin, Korea).png in PNG-format. But it isn't exact copies or scaled-down, deleted file have another format JPEG. PNG- and JPEG-files aren't identical from the point of view of assignment: JPEG-files are more intended for use in Viki (they in miniatures are usually best of all displayed, is sharper), PNG-file as providing the best quality, - it is more for external users. --Matsievsky (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have examined the deleted jpg files, compared them to their respective png versions, and found the png versions to be sharper and of superior quality. We have a policy regarding duplicates, and seeing how png and jpg files are raster images, there's literally no point in keeping a crap jpg version. -FASTILY 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support See COM:VP#Pngs and jpgs of the same images. And Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3788 stamp (Turkmenian Drinking Horn).jpg. Fastily examine is a crap. --Matsievsky (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that makes a lot of sense, you want these files in the live database because you uploaded them and are keeping some silly imagined score of some sort. If you're going to make poor quality (crap) contributions, then don't get upset when somebody else comes along and makes a better version. This is a community wiki after all, and if you're going to foolishly insist ownership over everything you've uploaded, then perhaps you should consider leaving the project. -FASTILY 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop acting up and you don't judge on yourself. If I advanced my images, would upload PNG. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fastily: Could you please clarify, which versions did you examine: those in full resolution, or the ~220px thumbnails generated from them (if there is such a possibility for deleted files)? Because the primary question is (see the linked discussion), whether the thumbnail would be sharper for jpg. If not (and you're sure of that), then yes, there's no need to restore the file... YLSS (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And the policy you link to says: Care should be taken when the format is different: For example, it is common and useful to have both a PNG and JPEG of the same image, since (due to a long-standing issue with the thumbnailer), JPEGs thumbnail is better. However, JPEGs aren't lossless images, so progressive editing of a JPEG will destroy the quality, whereas a PNG does not have this problem. Hence, a PNG for (further?) editing, and a JPEG for display is often necessary. Is this one a different case? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct, that is applicable to different formats of the same image; in this case, the jpg versions appear to be derived from a different, inferior source, and are of sub par quality when compared to the png versions. I've generated thumbnails for the jpg and png files and compiled the following table for comparison:
Name Original PNG Version Original JPG Version PNG Thumbnail (~250px) JPG Thumbnail (~250px)
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3790_stamp_(Head_of_Goddess_Guanyin,_Korea) here here ([1]) [2] [3]
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3791_stamp_(Bodhisattva_Statuette,_Tibet) here here ([4]) [5] [6]
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3792_stamp_(Ebisu_Statuette,_Japan) here here ([7]) [8] [9]
-FASTILY 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a difference in quality. Unless colors of PNG files burned out from time slightly more. Over time yellow and green shades usually turn pale and stamps become more blue. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway deleted "duplicates", duplicates not being. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jules Guiart-portrait en 1930.jpg, Image:Ileana of Romania 1909.jpg, File:Patriarch Iustin of Romania.jpg

All three images seem to be pre-1986, making them fall under {{PD-RO-photo}}. They should be restored and re-tagged if needed.--Strainu (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Vanessa Rubio Marquez.jpg

1.- srealc 2.- en el asunto 3.- Fotografía de perfil, nombre a archivo en el asunto 4.- Se solicita hace deshacer el borrado de la imagen, ya que se utilizará para poder realizar el perfil de la Subsecretaría. Es una fotografía tomada por el pool oficial de la Secretaría, la cual se utiliza dentro de la página de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores:

Yo laboro dentro de la Subsecretaría, por lo cual cuento con la autorización de poder subirla, si así lo requieren puedo enviar una documento firmado por el pool oficial así como el encargado jurídico de la secretaría autorizando el que puedo subir dicho archivo.

¿Cuál fue el motivo para eliminar la fotografía? ¿Qué procedimiento me salte para poder subirla? ¿De qué forma puedo volver a subir el archivo?


5.- --Srealc (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Vanessa Rubio Marquez.jpg

1. srealc 2. in Case 3. Photography profile file name in the subject 4. It is requested does undelete image as it is used to make the profile of the Secretariat. It is a photograph taken by an officer of the Secretariat pool, which is used within the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

I work within the Secretariat, so I count on authorization to upload, if required I can send a document signed by the official pool and the legal secretariat responsible for authorizing I can upload the file.

What was the reason to delete the photo? How do I skip to upload? How can I re-upload the file?