Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

iPhone strips EXIF from HEIC when converting to JPEG

Today I uploaded a mobile photo for the first time in a long while: File:SVB Kleiner Perkins Menlo Park April 2023.jpg. I have an iPhone SE (3rd gen), and as with all newer iPhones its native format for photos is HEIC. During my first attempt, I visited the Commons website on mobile Safari and went through UploadWizard, and it ended up stripping the EXIF when converting the HEIC to JPEG. On my second attempt, I emailed the photo to myself (selecting Original Size for the JPEG conversion), and uploaded it successfully from my desktop PC with EXIF intact. Now, I am a control freak who is going to spend the extra effort to get the EXIF right. But most users aren't going to bother; uploading directly from their phone is the easiest solution. And even if they email the photo to themselves (the correct solution for preserving EXIF), what's to say they'll always choose Original Size?

So what does this mean? Being low-resolution and/or lacking EXIF has little to no value in deciding whether an "own work" claim is correct for an image which appears reasonably likely to have been taken with a mobile phone (and note that with the advent of computational bokeh, not even a blurred background is proof that the image was taken by a big-sensor camera like a DSLR). Those who patrol new uploads should take note. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Low resolution and extreme low resolution is still a strong hint that image is suspicious, even if iPhone makes more likely that its users will be also trapped in this way Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be done on a holistic basis. For example, if a user already has had several images deleted as copyvio, then EXIF and/or resolution can make the difference between keeping them per COM:AGF (especially if they are all taken with the same camera) and deleting them per COM:PRP. But for a completely new user who uploads low-res images without EXIF which cannot be found on the Internet, we shouldn't rush to delete them if there is no probable cause for suspicion and they look like they could have reasonably been taken by an ordinary person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Such user should be at least contact and asked to provide full resolution of images. Maybe you can create guide how to convince proprietary Apple walled garden to release an actual photo? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What if they don't want to provide a full-res version? Commons has no policy requiring full-res photos, and some people intentionally do not want to give away the full version for free. But a greater concern is: what if they just uploaded one or a few images and disappeared? It's fine to ask nicely for a full-res version with EXIF, but we shouldn't be making that a requirement to avoid deletion, because that would result in us losing lots of good photos. You can dislike proprietary software all you want, but being processed with proprietary software is not a valid reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: COM:HR is a part of COM:FT, which should at least be a guideline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 09:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There are different views on what is low-res. For "web resolution" images (<650px?) there is probably a high risk that they are taken from the web or a video, but I have seen >1200x800px images been nominated as "low resolution". For "zooms" with smartphones and photos taken in demanding circumstances (such as low light or high winds) there may be little but noise in the additional pixels. Thus there may be no COM:HR ("please upload high resolution") version. For the Exif part, the upload wizard warns about Exif information – it is entirely reasonable to remove it for privacy reasons, unless you have tools and expertise to remove only problematic fields. –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But that is merely best practices; nowhere does it say that images must be high-res at the threat of deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What you mention means that signal is weaker. It does not mean that it has zero value Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it always has zero value. I said it has zero value if the photo otherwise looks reasonably likely to be self-photographed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Small and lacking in EXIF as a deletion reason, Take 2

I think it's pretty clear from the discussion in Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 8#Lack of EXIF as a deletion reason that the idea that a relatively small (not tiny) file size and lack of EXIF proves copyright violation is a minority opinion on this site and decidedly not policy - see also Commons:Deletion requests#Nomination guidelines: "And 'small size and missing EXIF data' is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio)." It may be a sufficient reason for some deletions based on the precautionary principle, but that is less and less true when the file was uploaded longer and longer ago, at a time when equipment was less likely to produce large images.

Yet some of the minority of Commons users who consider that relatively small + no EXIF = copyright violation, even though that's against policy, are admins, such as you can see in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human male reproductive organs-erect penis.jpg. Note that I was content to leave the decision of whether to keep or delete the photo in the hands of the closing admin, but on account of the photo being of decent quality but not outstanding and not because of any doubts about copyright. I am not calling for the file to be undeleted, but for deletion policy to be more consistently applied in regard to the bases for presuming copyright violation. If User:Taivo had stated that the precautionary principle was the deletion reason, I would find that fine, but note the deletion reason that was offered: "Deleted as copyright violation. Small photo without metadata." At least a deletion reason was offered, so I appreciate that, but can we please avoid language that states or suggests that "small photo without metadata" is equal to copyright violation or a reason to delete a photo by itself, when that's against policy? (Of course, if copyright violation had been conclusively discovered by finding a source for the file that had been uploaded to another site previously, etc., the size and lack of metadata would be beside the point, but in that case, I was misled by the language of the deletion reason.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, smaller size and lack of EXIF is not in itself a reason for deletion, but when all what is left after deletion of copyright violations and out of scope images are a few small images without EXIF, there is a strong suspicion that they are copyright violations, even if no copy can be (easily) found on the Internet. At this point, this symptom is all what we have to decide the fate of these files. Yann (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you agree that we at least have a problem of ambiguous phrasing in the deletion reason in this kind of case, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We can always try to improve the phrasing, but in the absence of more information in one way or the other, it is mostly a decision by the nominator and the deleting admin. Sometimes, it is quite obvious that an image is not the work of the uploader as claimed, but in another case, it is just a suspicion based on the subject, and other information (partial EXIF, etc.). For example, an image uploaded soon after being taken is more likely to be own work than one taken 10 years ago. Images of personalities are most likely to be copyvios, as well as images of military hardware and restricted places. Yann (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I get all of that, but I can tell you that at Wikivoyage, where I'm an admin, if we saw admins making deletions for stated reasons that were specifically in violation of policy, that would be discussed on their user talk pages, as has indeed happened there now and then. It's not too much to expect administrators to clearly uphold and follow policy, or for admins to reach out in friendly ways to other admins when that seems not to be happening. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Commons talk:Deletion policy#"Small images without EXIF data" and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sejarawan128 too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the Commons talk:Deletion policy link. LPfi's remark seems right on to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We also agree that Yann is in violation of policy in the Sejarawan128 thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Does policy apply to admins? Would Yann agree that? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously, policy applies to admins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• However, some admins don't accept that and instead find fault with those who call them on violating policy. The proper way for dissenting admins to deal with disagreements with policy is to propose changes - in this case, right on this talk page. And when their proposal is unsuccessful, they should stop giving "small and lacking in EXIF" as a reason to start a deletion request. But how are we going to get admins to stop going rogue on this in the meantime? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, that it is improper to state these symptoms as the reason for deletion; they should instead cite the precautionary principle. I would recommend updating the deletion policy to note the nuances of this issue, and that it must not be used solely as the deletion reason. ɱ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Plain-text PDF uploads

I've noticed that a substantial number of PDF uploads consist of out-of-scope content which should unquestionably be deleted - the most common variety is short text documents printed to PDF which represent (typically poorly executed) attempts to write encyclopedia articles, personal material like CVs or memoirs, or homework assignments.

1. Are these uploads generally subject to any criteria for speedy deletion, or do they need to go through a deletion request? Some of the personal content is potentially deleteable as promotional material, but that's a relatively small fraction of it.
2. Does there need to be more oversight of these uploads? My impression is that uploads in this category aren't consistently reviewed; the clunky MediaWiki interface for PDF uploads certainly doesn't help. But if there's some ongoing effort I'm not aware of, I'd be interested to know more about it.
3. Should the speedy deletion criteria be altered to cover some of these uploads? Several approaches which come to mind are:

• Speedy deletion criterion GA1 ("User intended to create encyclopedic content") is currently specific to gallery pages, but could easily be modified to a more general criterion for uploaded content "intended to be an encyclopedic article".
• Similarly, criterion F10 ("Personal photos by non-contributors") is currently specific to photos, but could probably be rewritten to encompass personal textual material like CVs and autobiographies.
• Finally, another option would be to add a new targeted criterion for unquestionably out-of-scope PDF content. I'm not sure how this would be worded.

If you want to take a look at some of these uploads I'm talking about, here's a NewFiles query to look at all PDFs. There are a substantial number of legitimate PDF/DjVu uploads - typically scans of old books and government documents - but there are also a surprising number of users hitting "print to PDF" on text documents and uploading the results.

Omphalographer (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Logos have no educational value, take 2 (or is it 3?)

The question in Commons:Deletion requests/File:ATS Group Logo.png was whether a logo was the uploader's own work, and on the other hand, whether it was above COM:TOO, but the deletion reason was "unused, no educational value, out of scope." P199, don't I remember correctly that you think any logo that is not currently in use in a Wikipedia article has "no educational value"? That's clearly false in many cases. It may be judged to have insufficient (not no) educational value if it's the logo of an almost totally unknown company, organization or group, but in this case, I feel kind of like you sidestepped the question in order to take an opportunity to delete logos because of the belief about unused logos that I cited (right, I'm not supposed to look for motivations, whatever, but if I'm not incorrect in remembering this as a position you take, it's out in the open and not an assumption of bad faith on my part that that's your motivation to delete unused logos whenever you close a deletion request for one). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Strise Logo Registered RGB.png, also. The company still has a Wikidata entry, so the logo should have been kept for historical reasons. I'm inclined to nominate it for undeletion, except that I've had such disagreeable experiences at Undeletion Requests. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ikan. Thanks for this centralized discussion. I stand by the position that intrinsically logos have no educational value. If the company is not notable and the logo is unused, it qualifies for deletion. This has been established through many precedents over the years - long before my involvement as admin - as the practice at Commons. It has also been common practice that once an image has been nominated for deletion, it may still be deleted even if the original deletion reason changed or was refuted and the closing admin deletes it for a different reason (I admit that this may be controversial, but that is not the point of discussion here). As for WD, it has completely different inclusion criteria that often contradict Commons (and WP). That creates weird situations: I have seen situations where a Commons category couldn't be deleted because it was used on WD, and the WD entry couldn't be deleted because there was a Commons category! As for my motivations, I readily admit that I go for quality over quantity (especially since I see that Commons has already passed the point where users and admins can properly maintain the massive repository). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, a general problem I see with logos is that they very very often lack proper descriptions, and thus are also not properly categorized. I fully agree with Ikans opinion for all logos that state the origin (which organization uses it), like for example File:Canalseisdejulio.png: even if it weren't in use, it is pretty well described, and leaves no doubt what it is about. I am less content with logos like File:1nllqyrskmds.jpg, where you first need to identify (from the image content) that this might be a Azerbaidshani logo, possibly of some local institution? While not in use, it is in theory possible to trace it to the origin, if you just put the energy into it. Only then we can decide what to do with it. There are of course worse, like File:22-FInal-Logo.webp. en:Nexus shows a multitude of brands and organizations with that name. Unless someone recognizes the logo and links it to an existing article, this Nexus-Logo is just garbage. Should we keep it? Similarly, the series of File:1лого.png, File:2лого.png and File:3лого.png. Exactly 0 zero clues what it might be about. It is my firm belief that such logos are not worth keeping and are only here on Commons to await their eventual deletion. Though, I don't really bother with such stuff usually.

But back to corporate logos. Here I found one which states its origin and strongly suggests commercial use: File:QIRAT LLC, Logo.png. With a quick Qwant search, I found that it is the logo of a metal-trading company from Dubai (coins, gold and stuff?) and that it was shortly registered in Texas between 2020 and 2023. If I follow Ikans opinion, such a logo should not be deleted in case the company might get covered in the future? Another one is File:Reibus International Logo.png (qwant says: this company), currently still in use although the Draft request was denied. The Draft will soon vanish and only the logo will remain on Commons without proper documentation. This appears to be a cycle that many logos go through, like File:RingStoneLogo.png (qwant says: this company) and File:Risk Is Key Clothing.jpg (qwant says: this company) and File:Risk&co group-anticip Plan de travail 1.jpg (qwant says: this company). Some of these companies appear to have longer lifetimes than others while others might disappear on the web in less than ten years. I like archiving potentially useful stuff, but what is the historical use of just these logos without documentation what the company was about? All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

File:1nllqyrskmds.jpg appears to be COM:INUSE, so as long as that's the case, a question of scope is moot, but that logo looks above COM:TOO and therefore should probably be nominated for deletion and deleted. Agreed on Nexus. The series of logo files described in Russian appears to be of "Alchevsk." I guess that would be w:Alchevsk, Ukraine, but the logo isn't used in that article, and anyway, it would be above COM:TOO, so all three pictures in that series should be nominated for deletion and deleted. File:QIRAT LLC, Logo.png should be deleted as purely promotional, and no, I don't see any likelihood of a Wikipedia article about that LLC. Would you like my opinions about the other logos you linked? I agree that lots of logos should be deleted, but I totally disagree with the idea that every logo that's not in use has no educational value whatsoever and should be summarily deleted, and what I have noticed is that there is clear disagreement between different admins on this topic, so I hope more admins weigh in on the scope question. Like any other image file, it makes sense to make a decision on notability related to logos and to have a somewhat broader view of it than en.Wikipedia, based on the idea that it might be plausible for the company or organization to have its own article, that it's a subsidiary of a company that has or plausibly could have an article on a Wikipedia, or that it's plausible for the company or organization to be substantively mentioned in an article because of some noteworthy thing it does or did. That's why I now and then think we should keep a logo even when a Wikipedia draft or article about the company or organization was deleted: it could still meet a broader definition of notability that does not discount certain kinds of media mentions that are insufficient for Wikipedia notability for a dedicated article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hot take: this isn't just a logo problem. Many types of images have little to no educational value if they aren't identifiable; the same issues are likely to apply to a photo of an unidentified person, for example. Omphalographer (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, although photos of unknown individuals are sometimes good portraits. I would agree, though, that it would be extremely rare for it to make sense to keep a logo of a totally unidentifiable organization just in order to show what a great logo can look like. If we have no way of knowing what the organization sells, how could we know whether the logo is good or bad for it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Before I make a decision on whether to start an Undeletion requests thread for File:Strise Logo Registered RGB.png, I'd like some feedback from some other admins on whether the logo of a company with a Wikidata entry is out of scope because there's no Wikipedia article about the company. That seems to me to be treating one wiki as having no relevance to Commons, whereas another one has relevance. If we can agree that Wikidata is relevant and that a company with a Wikidata entry is thereby in scope for Commons, the next question would be why a current or former logo of the business in question is out of scope. By the way, I should also say that I appreciate P199's constructive comments and viewpoint, although I take a somewhat broader view of what should be in scope and would like for different admins to vary a little less in their decisions in regard to scope. If every admin wants to decide that all logo files should be hidden immediately upon removal from Wikipedia articles, I suggest a bot be created to do this automatically, but it's disturbing for discussions to be ended with automatic deletions on that basis, because then the discussions are a waste of time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

While it is easy to create a Wikidata entry for any business, notable or not, many notable businesses lack Wikipedia articles, and articles written may be deleted as lacking independent sources or whatever. I think that if the logo is described such that the company can be identified (which should mostly be the case if there is a Wikidata entry), it should be regarded as in scope unless one can show that the company is non-notable. Even then logos typical for the industry and area, of a type we don't have, have educational value. I'd conclude that to delete a logo as not in scope, either it has to be badly described or somebody needs to have local knowledge. –LPfi (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but logos are almost always in scope with rare exceptions being when they are badly described as others have said and/or if its a personal/fantasy logo. Logos for most companies are going to be in be scope though because most companies are notable enough for a Wikidata entry. I've actually created Wikidata entries for certain companies just because someone uploaded their logo to Commons, which I didn't to get deleted due to not being used, and the company sounded interesting when I looked into it. Same goes for other types of images BTW. That's always an option. It only takes a few minutes to make something be in scope by connecting it to a Wikidata entry. And from what I've seen at least with logos a lot of times there will already be a Wikidata entry for company associated with the logo that no one added it to. Logos or otherwise it's harmfull the project IMO to delete images as not in scope without at least checking if there is (or can be) a use for them first. Although I agree with others that images of badly described logos are essentially worthless. It's not a bright line though and usually an easy fix with a little research. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that might be a violation of Wikidata's notability guidelines. Files, including files in Commons, are specifically out of scope for the "one valid sitelink" criterion. Omphalographer (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about doing it as a site link, but with P154 in an entry for the company that's refernced to outside sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

My take:

• Being the logo image of a Wikidata entry counts as COM:INUSE.
• Therefore, the logo of an organization that meets Wikidata's notability standards is in scope.
• When it comes to encyclopedic topics, Wikidata's notability standards can be thought of as similar to Wikipedia's standards but with no NOTINHERITED rule. For example, if you have a tiny publishing house that has published 5 Wikipedia-notable books, and there is no significant coverage on the publishing house itself, then it is not notable by Wikipedia standards, but it is notable by Wikidata's standards: "It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful", e.g. in order to fill in the publisher property on those books.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to rely on Wikidata to assess notability, as their notability guidelines are primarily based on whether any other project wiki (including Commons!) has a content page for an entity. Commons depending on the presence of a Wikidata entity to infer notability could potentially create a "notability loop", e.g. an entity which is only present on Commons because it has a Wikidata entry, and only present on Wikidata because it has a gallery page on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is suggesting basing a Wikidata item purely on the logo or content from Commons. It's pretty easy to find online references for most companies these days. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, folks. So if a company has a Wikidata entry and their current logo would be in scope, the next question is whether their former logo would be in scope. Right now, it seems like there would likely be a split on this question if I did an undeletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If a logo once was in scope as notable, I see no reason why it wouldn't be forever. Logos in use can be found at the company and its products; it is for the former ones, and for those of not longer existing companies, that repositories such as Commons are needed. –LPfi (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree with you on the value of Commons as a site that preserves history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: Having only a Commons page is explicitly stated to be insufficient for Wikidata notability, which breaks the loop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I started an undeletion request, Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Strise Logo Registered RGB.png. I invite anyone reading to participate, as it would be excellent to establish an agreed-upon policy for this kind of case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Splitting up combined deletion requests

I've been going through deletion requests for stamps and putting them in specific categories based on the country of origin. I can't do it with this DR though because it involves multiple requests that have the same name, with stamps from different countries. As they all share the same category menu. So I was wondering if there is a way to split them up into individual deletion requests so I can categorize each one by country. Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Contesting denial of request the change year in title of photo of Led Zeppelin

File:Ledzeppelin posterpelo 1972.jpg

This photo was taken circa 1968/1969, not 1972

My request to change the year mentioned in the title of the photo of Led Zeppelin was denied in a very short amount of time--prematurely with not enough time for meaningful discussion. But, I maintain that the year mentioned in the photo is inaccurate. I ask for re-consideration on the matter. As an experienced editor knowledgeable in rock history, I contend that this photo was not taken in 1972, but in circa 1968/1969.

I realize that a reliable source from 1972 published this photo, but that does not necessarily mean 1972 was the year the photo was taken. I could try to find a reliable source with an earlier year for this exact photo, but I don't see what that would be necessary: It is obvious public knowledge.

Like the Beatles, the evolution of Led Zeppelin's appearance over the course of their years is well known in the public mind. For instance, most people will quickly recognize the difference in a photo taken the Beatles in 1966 and one taken two years later in 1968. Even if a reliable source mislabeled the 1966 photo as 1968, Wiki editors would quickly filter out the mistake and not take it literally or try to present it as such. I realize that this may seem like splitting hairs over a silly photograph, but at Wikipedia we must be accurate in what we present to the public.

Using reliable sources is important, yes, but we as editors also have to make reliable judgments as well. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it is infallible and we have to know how to use discernment. Just because the photo appeared in a publication in 1972 does not mean that it was necessarily taken that year (I highly doubt that the 1972 source made the claim that the group was "pictured in 1972" and if they did, they were mistaken).

I do have a CNN site as a reliable source for other photos with years mentioned in the captions. Please notice the obvious difference in the way the group looked in 1968 (at the top) vs. 1972 (live at the Forum).[1]. Please note the group's appearance on the back of their debut album released in Jan. 1969 [2] vs. 1972 [3]. These differences are easy to recognize and can be corroborated with numerous other photos with years mentioned in a host of reliable sources.

I think that there could have been more discussion before my request was denied, and I ask for a second look on the matter. If we cannot agree to to replace the year with an earlier year in title, then perhaps the best solution would be to just take out any mention of year in the photo. I think this would be a solution, because there is sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of the year in the title of the photo in question--yes it is under debate. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I just made another request, but his time only to have the year taken out of the title (not to actually change the year). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, when you say you "made a request," do you mean a deletion request? If so, of course it was denied! If not, where did you suggest the change? It seems like the best place to have this discussion would be on the file's talk page, perhaps with a pointer in some relevant board of the Village Pump. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek they used the request for rename template, see [4], which imho is the correct procedure. The disagreement lies in the publication date of this photograph by the magazine (1972) vs the date of creation of the photograph (presumed by Garagepunk66 to be 1968/1969). I agree that the best solution would be to remove the date from the title of the file: not everyone seeing the name will realize that "posterpelo" refers to a "poster from the magazine Pelo". Ciell (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This is still the wrong place for the discussion. Move it all to the talk page of the photo (and include the stuff explained there, in the image description, asap!) Best, --Enyavar (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The same post as above is already on the file's talk page (really: don't you guys review the links when they are provided before responding here?). I do agree that DR/Talk page is not the best place for the discussion, but comments on file talk pages can go unnoticed for years and Commons:File renaming is not clear on where to go when one would like to challenge a decision by a file mover. Ciell (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done: request is now done by the file mover. Ciell (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion requests not visible?

I'd like to respond to a simultaneous deletion request of multiple files made on August 16 (visible on their description pages: [5], [6], [7], [8]). However, I'm noticing that the nominator's reasoning is not appearing on the nomination pages, the requests are not listed on the project page (absent at Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/16 although searchable [9]), and no automated notification has been posted at the Wikipedia articles where the images are used (e.g. Talk:Aghlabids).

The deletion templates seem fine at first glance; could anyone confirm if there's a format problem or the nominator missed a step? I don't want to spend time responding to nominations that may not actually be visible to the community. (PS: It would also be great if these four identical nominations could be combined, if possible.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a bug seems to have happened. I tried to fix it by making it a fully new DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of the Aghlabid Emirate --Enyavar (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Ironically, I'm here to oppose the original requests as inappropriate, but does the "Speedy keep" response by King of Hearts means that it's already being closed by an admin? If not, do you know whether this will trigger a notification on the talk pages of the affected Wikipedia articles? R Prazeres (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no notification in any WPs until the file gets deleted (which has surprised me a few times before). I'm sure that the files are keepers, but I'm pretty resolved by now to take some time to correct the falsified extents in the SVGs to be in accordance to the only available source I've seen. --Enyavar (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh really? Good to know about the notifications; though can I ask what generates notifications like these, for example? (That's what I was thinking of.) As for the "falsified extents", do you mean the extended territories in the non-English maps? R Prazeres (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

mw:Topic:Xoxzshsteuc8agxk

Do we know ideas on how this matter occurs? This affects users who enabled Discussion Tool beta feature. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Commons allows for special characters in general. Although I don't know why people couldn't type them into discussion posts regardless. Like I can do -/+ perfectly fine. So this seems like a weird bug or something that only effects certain users for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I'd like to put the following just before the Overview section. I'm not wedded to this wording, but I think something like this should be here:

Do not use the DR process to report inappropriate images of children that might raise legal issues, because the process is likely to bring more eyeballs to the image. Instead, email the Wikimedia Foundation at legal-reportswikimedia.org. Be sure to include a link to the content. We do not encourage community members to download or archive potentially inappropriate content.

Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Should probably also mention that other sensitive material, like personal identity documents, should be communicated directly to the Oversight team (Commons:Oversighters) rather than opening a deletion request. Slightly different class of content and different handling, but same principle. Omphalographer (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change

Just a small thing: "When requesting deletion of a nudity/sex/porn related images" is not grammatically correct. Either the "a" should be removed, or it should be "image" (singular). Renerpho (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete button sometimes malfunctioning

I've been noticing the admin button to delete a file when closing deletion requests sometimes malfunctions, and the image is not actually deleted. I've seen the issue on 2 different computers I use with 2 different operating systems. It seems to be happening more commonly. If this is being discussed elsewhere, can someone please direct me to it? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: That looks like a bug, please see mw:How to report a bug.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation Are you using the DelReqHandler script? If so, that's a long-occurring bug that is very annoying. When closing deletion requests with multiple files I usually refresh the page to make sure they all got deleted. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletions of batch uploads

Hello Commons admins!

The EditGroups tool tracks batch editing, including batch uploads. So far, it only allowed people to undo regular edits, not uploads, but I think it would be worth adding that, to make sure Commons admins are able to delete erroneous uploads easily. For all Commons tools that let EditGroups track their edits, you can reach the page about the edit group by clicking the "(details)" link in the summary of any edit in the group.

I have two requests about that:

• would any Commons admin volunteer to test the feature? Perhaps there are existing faulty batches (as in, batch uploads from OpenRefine where no license was added at all) that you could try deleting with the tool, or I could make a small one (only uploading a single media file, say).
• on Wikidata, this feature has been used for quite some time already, and regular users are able to request the deletion of a batch fairly easily, as follows:

• Log in to Wikidata's EditGroups instance
• Go to a batch that creates new entities, such as https://editgroups.toolforge.org/b/QSv2T/1698262804338/
• Click "Ask an admin to undo"
• This takes you to the page where deletions are requested, directly in editing mode to create a new section, with pre-filled information about the batch you want to undo.

We could enable the following for Commons, the problem is that you don't seem to have an equivalent of d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions. Where should the tool point users to instead? For now it's pointing to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard, but that's probably not ideal.

Let me know what you think. − Pintoch (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pintoch: That is the best place on Commons for such a request, unless you want the tool to create a DR or a new place can be specified and watched by lots of Admins.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

How do I find the deletion request is indexed?

I am trying to find what date was assigned to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Immanuel Estermann.jpg. It does not seem to be indexed here under 29 August. ReyHahn (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Immanuel Estermann.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: It was 29 August - currently the third DR transcluded on Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/29.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

O thank you all. But then why does this page only links to DRs from October on? and why is it not in Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Open DRs older than October are in a different section, Commons:Deletion requests#Open requests, as they may be closed at will by Admins. Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08 is too full right now to show everything, it only shows up to the first four requests on August 21 and is automatically in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It should show all of August 29 after the first nine or so days' requests are cleared. Sadly, this is just the way it is until phab:T189108 et al are approved and implemented (not likely given this best reply). Or copyright violators slow down significantly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Unterirdische Qualität

Ich habe mich mal mit den Bildern von Falken beschäftigt und einige umsortiert. Diese beiden Bilder Bluefalcon20090808.jpg und Falcon.png sind von unterirdischer Qualität. Wir haben zahlreiche gute Fotos von Wanderfalken, da sollte solcher Schrott gelöscht werden. I had a look at the pictures of falcons and rearranged some of them. These two pictures Bluefalcon20090808.jpg and Falcon.png are of subterranean quality. We have a lot of good photos of peregrine falcons, so junk like this should be deleted. Falkmart (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Can admins delete arbitrary subsets of files despite DR Keep outcomes?

If so when and why? Are there maybe relevant cases or guidelines for this?

Asking because of Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Astronaut amid flowing colors 'Push Your Envelope'.jpg & 2 other files deleted despite of a Keep outcome. I did not know current WMC policy allows for this except for when there either is another policy such as COM:CV that requires deletion or when DR participants also discussed some subset/criteria/cases of the nominated files to delete. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)