User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2023

File:RioCuartoEscudo.jpg

File:RioCuartoEscudo.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: CSD G2 (Unused and implausible, or broken redirect)) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Meno25.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

speedy for file used on Wikisource

File:Aspects of Early Assamese Literature.pdf is requested for G7-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio. It seems to only have an index file aat asWS so would be easy for them to clean up if you believe that the file does breach copyright. There are no subsidiary transcribed pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Very fast deletion

Dear Billinghurst! Many thanks for the quick deletion of the wrong categories (András Sándor, Jenő Rónay)! Bizottmány (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Two files

Hi, regarding File:Things to do in Iceland (6943902386).jpg and File:HARPA - NEW CONFERENCE AND CONCERT CENTER (5721999480).jpg: You declined speedy deletion, but why? Unlike the other files in the current DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall), these two were already deleted per consensus in an earlier deletion request (see the log files resp. expand the earlier DR), and it was therefore suggested in the current DR that I nominate them for speedy deletion, as they are re-uploads of deleted content. AFAIK that makes them indeed eligible for speedy deletion? I could have deleted them myself, but didn't want to do that for procedural reasons (I think that, even though I'm an admin, I shouldn't just delete files I nominated for deletion). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: I said it in the decline reason, there is an existing DR. Where both noms exist on the file then the DR should take precedence, and that has been the general approach for years and the feedback where admins have stepped in to circumvent the community's consensus. The speedy process is meant to be speedy for both, and it takes a level of research and reading the DR to get to the understanding of the files and that is not meant to be the speedy process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To understand whether you would have a conflict of interest in the case is something that would take deeper reading, and that is not speedy. Implementing a (pre-)determined consensus is not a conflict of interest that is procedural action, that is not just deleting a file. However, you are correct on if there is doubt, then err on the side of caution, and that is what I did when not speedying, and letting the DR run its course.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I filed the DR first together with other files, than later thought that these two files can be speedied anyway because they're a simple case of re-upload of deleted content (so, if I hadn't filed the DR at all, I assume you would have deleted them, and it's not uncommon that obvious cases get speedy deleted despite a pending regular DR, I think), but I understand that it may not be an obvious case without reading the DR first and digging in the history, so I have no problem with letting the DR take its regular course including these two files, and thanks for the reply. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: If you had removed the DR part of the request, I reckon that I would have deleted them oblivious of the DR. The person who lodges the request is not a primary focus when I process them, processed on the argument and evidence. I flicked to the DR gave it a quick scan, went "hmm, complex", left it to the community process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent deletions

@Billinghurst, were these marked duplicate by a bot or manually?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=340430264

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=340430306

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=340430310

-- Ooligan (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked one, and it was manual. The process for marking duplicate is unimportant to the action taken.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is there is no redirect on these three files? -- Ooligan (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent uploads, unused, not required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

file:Андрій_Матюха.jpg

Hi, can you tell more on the reason for deletion of Андрій_Матюха.jpg. It was used in the article in ukwiki. Though the author was a sock puppet (user was checked just today) and I was going to nominate it soon, the reason G7 seems rather strange. Anntinomy (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anntinomy: contributor said that they did not have permission to upload.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

1787 maps of Afghanistan

We are using categories to sort similar files of the same topic. Yes, of course it is possible that "1787 maps of Mazar-i-Sharif" or "1629 maps of Dalmatia" or "1811 maps of Kolkata" exist. But we don't need these category right now until we have multiple of such files. Until that time, "1780s maps Afghanistan" are sufficient... unless there aren't even any files in that category, which means that Category:1780s maps of Central Asia or Category:18th-century maps of Afghanistan are sufficient. --Enyavar (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Enyavar: There is zero value in deleting those categories when they exist, especially when the template exists and others can just re-create them so easily. They show as empty in the count from parent categories so will not mislead users. Please reread the commentary about deleting empty categories, it is not solely that that empty.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with keeping the "1780s maps of Afghanistan" even as an empty one. But 1787 (etc.) is too granular. As long as year-categories exist, they might get used accidentally, despite them having no value at all. If at some point in the future, we actually have dozens of maps showing Afghanistan in 1787, we can easily recreate a specific category for that year. Having merely one or two maps in such a category makes browsing needlessly difficult, while pinpointing the year might even be false. It is possible that a map gets reprinted in 1787, but the original drawing was in 1782, based on the most recent survey data from 1777. Thus, for old maps, a granularity of maps by decade is usually fine enough. --Enyavar (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Ukrainian People's Socialist Republic.svg

So whats the specific reason for reverting the file update on the page you gave? The update gave it the colors that it most likely wouldve had based on available evidence. I re-reverted back to your revert because I think asking you whats up is probably a better way to solve it. I put a source in the file description as well. NorthTension (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@NorthTension: Which bit of Commons:Overwriting existing files doesn't explain this? Nothing is stopping you from using File:Flag of Ukraine (1917–1921).svg. Nothing is stopping the replacement of use to the other version if that is considered more accurate colours. Nothing is stopping the appropriate management of a file where the community deems that it is not correct. We are stopping the overwriting of the file based on a new colour scheme.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly mistaken deletion of File:Darren_Aidenojie.jpg

I was looking at File:Darren_Aidenojie.jpg just before you deleted it, and I think it may not have been eligible under G7. According to the upload log, it was first uploaded in 2022, though it got overwritten and reverted today. I think G7 is only meant to apply when the oldest version of a file was uploaded less than seven days ago. --bjh21 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Please delete RCE suggested categories when asked, they are only temporary

Dear Billinghurst, I asked for a speedy deletion of Category:RCE suggested: Telmerken, because this is only a temporary category, the files should be moved to correct categories. I did, so the category is redundant now. But you made it a redirect, which is not the intention of these empty categories. We Dutch editors are trying to get rid of them, see Commons talk:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed#Overgebleven categorie suggesties verwerken (in Dutch). I emptied several hundreds and User:Túrelio always deleted them. So I hope you will too. JopkeB (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@JopkeB: that is not exactly a correct representation of the situation. This was a category that you moved, and I restored the redirect that was created when you moved it. Empty category speedy deletion is qualified in the policy and should be read in conjunction with the guidance around moved categories and th use of {{Category redirect}}, so that users can still find the new site of the target. The category was created in 2013, and there is nothing overt to indicate that it should NOT have some ongoing target. So in this case the talk page that you referenced should be included in the deletion request as a record of the consensus to delete. I will happily delete it, though ask that you properly reference deletion discussions if they are to be part of the consideration.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst, for your reaction. I understand.

I have made a note on Category talk:RCE suggested categories about the situation, I will include a link to it in future deletion requests. Would that be clear enough? JopkeB (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

discountciggs.com

Hi on here too!

Can you add discountciggs.com to the Commons SBL? I removed lots of links to it today (see my contribs here). Count Count (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Count Count: One of those that I think that we should handle globally. It isn't going to be within scope on any wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrongful massdeletions by you

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at User talk:193.240.244.156#overly deep categorisation. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Labintatlo (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on getting rid of empty, parentless categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for noticing. Saw you plea, and was home ill, so plodding through was something that wasn't grinding the brain cells. Done a fair bit of linking and general maintenance along the way too. The things we do to stop being bored. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please undelete

Not empty:

• Category:Black, blue, brown, cyan, green, maroon, orange, red, vermilion, white, yellow

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in/contribute to a photo contest

English

Dear Billinghurst,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Spanish

Hola Billinghurst,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese

Olá Billinghurst,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre "Corpos plurais no esporte"!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, About e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports. Sunshine Fionah Komusana (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

== Lefebvre ==

+ACM Hi! About the Lefebvre's images in 1956 with the Sultan of Marroc. I don't understand «Factual accuracy», but why wasn't Lefebvre. First reason, Lefebvre never was Apostolic Delegate in Marroc. Second and last Lefebvre as missionary always had beard until 1962.

Parair (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Parair: I am not here to say that the upload is right or not; nor whether the corrections are right or not. It is my task to mark the files that were uploaded as being challenged. Please follow the community's processes to resolve that issue. Telling me isn't going to do that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Parair and Billinghurst: It seems in fact that the uploader confused with Louis-Amédée Lefèvre (fr), who was then archbishop of Rabat. --Reda benkhadra (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I administratively made the edits to allow the process to be undertaken. I know nothing about the specific case. Please don't debate the how where or when on my talk page, there is no value and won't arrive at a better determination, nor resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously! Parair (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A question

Excuse me, dear admin, i want to ask, does a file that sourced from social media is allowed in Commons? Like this one. Regards MilkyBoba (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@MilkyBoba: It is the license that is assigned to the work, not the source. Typically facebook images don't have a license that allows them to be hosted here. The reference page or the site's copyright will guide us if there is the required release from copyright.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for both speedy reply and speedy deletion... MilkyBoba (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Hauts-de-France photographs taken on 2021-10-09

just a heads-up. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Александр Дорофеев

Category:Александр Дорофеев: I know you usually know what your doing but this seems a very odd redirect. The name is basically Alexander Dorofeyev, but it redirects to Category:Mikhail Kolesnikov (Uzbek general). What's the connection? - Jmabel ! talk 09:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yep, it was a weird one. The contents are all moved to the corresponding category and the contents like File:Колесников Михаил Иванович. Гудаута 2018.jpg are pointing to that perspm <shrug> Russian patronymics are not my strong suit. Stuff it, I will just delete the redirecting category, and someone can recreate if necessary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete it. No patronymic involved here. Two unrelated names. - Jmabel ! talk 09:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#Please move the files back to their original names. For moving files in violation of established community guidelines..

EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi billinghurst, I am sorry to have begun a speedy deletion request for a file that does not meet the criteria. I was encouraged to use another way for deletion in another DR, when it's an obvious copyright violation but I personally do also like to discuss it first in order to give the uploader time to answer. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Zwei Ortslinden (Mehlmeisel)

Hi @Billinghurst, you deleted category "Zwei Ortslinden (Mehlmeisel)" with reason C2 ("empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used"). But it was not empty; it had an image in it, it was a subcategory of natural monuments in its district, and more pictures of that natural monument will be uploaded in upcoming WLE. Why the deletion? Plozessor (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) convenience link Category:Zwei Ortslinden (Mehlmeisel). - Jmabel ! talk 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment @Plozessor: it never had any parent categories, so it wasn't a properly formed category in the first place. Can't speak to there possibly having been a file in the category (there's nothing there now), but a "C2" deletion is a deletion "without prejudice" (empty, and the person deleting figures it won't get used), so you should feel free to recreate it (this time with at least one parent category, though). FWIW, the entire content was 'Naturdenkmal 20/01, ND-03664 "Zwei Ortslinden" in Mehlmeisel (nur noch eine Linde)', if you want to be spared thinking that through again. Probably should be inside a {{De}} template, though.

@Billinghurst, I hope you don't mind my having answered here, feel free to do the same on something similar on my user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel There was one file, @Billinghurst removed that from the category and THEN deleted the (NOW empty) category; I'm quite confident that this NOT what C2 is meant for. I'm also pretty confident that the deleted category had "Category:Natural monuments in Landkreis Bayreuth" as a parent, but I can't access the history to verify. Also this was a meaningful category for an officially protected natural monument, so it's clearly expected to be used in the future. Plozessor (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Plozessor: I assure you that the category had no parent. What I indicated above was its only content. Since you seem to doubt my word, I have undeleted the history so that you can see for yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thanks! I did not really 'doubt your word' but I guessed that someone else must have removed the parent categories before. But from the history it seems that this was not the case, so maybe it was my error when I created the category. Still, the category did IMO not meet the C2 speedy deletion requirements, a) it was not empty (Billinghurst just emptied it before removal) and it not "obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used", it was just missing the correct parent category. Anyone knowing a bit about categorization of German protected areas and natural monuments would have instantly known the correct parent category and added that. Plozessor (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, Plozessor, Billinghurst and I have fixed about 6000 parentless categories in the last four or so months; about half have been deletions, the other half have been given appropriate parents. To the best of my knowledge, this is literally the first one where anyone has complained about how either one of us resolved something. That's a pretty low error rate. We would not even have been looking at it if the category had been correctly formed and, as I said above, a C2 deletion is a deletion without prejudice, which in no way prevents restoring the category if it is useful. You formed the category incorrectly; he went (rather harmlessly, it seems to me) the wrong way in trying to fix your error. I'd appreciate being spared a lecture about our ignorance. Can we be done with this? - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

YY, I guessed it was an accidental mistake, all good. Just wanted to know the reasoning, but sure, if you fix thousands of items you can make a mistake. Good that I spotted it because someone else removed the category (as it didn't exist) from a page that I'm monitoring ;) Anyway, thanks @Jmabel and @Billinghurst for your work! Plozessor (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)