Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Authorized to Upload the picture

This is not a copyright I have a rights to upload and use this image. Thanks Sepiorosario (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sepiorosario: Hi, and welcome. Which of your 13 deleted or disputed images does this concern? Why post here?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, sorry I am using a mobile. I am talking about this one https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laura-8_1296x.jpg. I have rights to use and upload the image since I am connected to Laura Yelin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepiorosario (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 January 2022‎ (UTC)

This is insufficient permission. The artist needs to give their permission directly, see process at COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

ep

{{ep}}

<translate>
===Nomination guidelines===

</translate>
<translate>Please follow these guidelines to make the deletion request as complete and clear as possible:</translate>
# <translate>When requesting deletion of a [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates|duplicate]], add the link to the duplicate image. The closing admin needs to see it.</translate>
# <translate>When requesting deletion of a [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant|redundant file]], link to the redundant image. The closing admin needs to see it.</translate>
# <translate>When nominating an image suspected of copyright violation, say ''why'' the image is a suspected copyvio. The more detail, the better (a deletion request that only casts a vague accusation can be considered as "incomplete"). And "small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio).</translate>
# <translate>When nominating all the files of a category, list every file (not just the category itself). The closing admin needs to be able to easily click in the DR to access each image.</translate>
# <translate>When participating in a discussion of a mass deletion (i.e. 10+ images), strike out the images that are agreed to be kept, <s>strike</s> them in the original list.</translate>
# <translate>When requesting deletion of a nudity/sex/porn related images, mention this in the nomination. This allows reviewers and admins to prepare themselves or choose not to review.</translate>

Fixed TU markup, and split them into smaller pieces. @P199: you don't need to add translation unit number (like "T:74") manually. Stang^★ 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I did nothing wrong I got it from free image picture and they allowed it. PeaceAndGood (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceAndGood: Hi, and welcome. Please read COM:L, COM:EVID, and {{Pixabay}} again.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Uh so I got picture from pixabay and it was a free image website.So I did nothing wrong could your help me.I don't want my photo from deleted. PeaceAndGood (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceAndGood: Which of your 23 deleted file uploads out of your 25 most recent file upload log entries do you mean? Or was it something older?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So I do upload a file called anopheles minimus and other mosquito picture but it was free image and everyone accept it but why this time someone deleted it. PeaceAndGood (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceAndGood: I was looking for a specific filename. File:Anopheles minimus 1.jpg is not deleted and was not from pixabay. You uploaded it without a license tag. We need a license tag as part of every upload. Thank you for adding a license tag in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry about that I'm not gonna take image from pixabay.Also I upload another free image please help me verify it. PeaceAndGood (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceAndGood: It was verified to be a copyright violation and you were blocked for uploading it and your history.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio

wouldn't that be a copyright violoation? 70.161.8.90 14:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

May be, or may be not, but not enough information given anyway. DR created. BTW this is the wrong place to report it. Yann (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I started a deletion request but now I see the license is invalid

It should be speedily deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/File:CapturedWagnerfighter.png. Should I tag it for speedy? I imagine that now a discussion is ongoing I should ask here first or..? ~ R.T.G 22:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are any valid outstanding "keep" !votes in a DR, it should not be speedily deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

However, the license is invalid. The licensee doesn't have the right to release the item (see the updated version of the deletion request). We don't have the right to keep it. Not at this moment anyway. It took me AGES to find the specific guidelines for it and even then I was referred off the site (I must try and improve that or get the community to do so, it's an unusual situation but it is going to come back one day in an even more pressing fashion). ~ R.T.G 09:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to decide unilaterally whether the license is valid. By definition, the proposer of a DR believes that the license is invalid, but others may disagree. That is why we have a discussion as opposed to speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Unique headers for subsequent discussions in a deletion-discussion page

If I re-nominate a file, or file a subsequent mass-deletion for a user's uploads that had previously had one, the pre-existing COM:DR subpage is used. {{Delete2}} creates a new level-3 header containing the filename and VFC does likewise for the user-name. But that means it will be the same section-name for each subsequent request on the subpage. Having non-unique section-names breaks navigation (see en:Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections for details). Having unique section-names (or some other unique marker) would mean we could do clever things like linking to just a relevant section from a notice-board or transcluding a certain section (an active one rather than also the long-ago-closed one) on a log (see en:WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION for details).

Is there a down-side to hand-modifying the subsequent level-3 headers as a quick fix when needed? Does this situation arise often enough that we should bother looking to add a note about it to the usual workflow or enhance the tools to do so? DMacks (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I number them when I see them. I would support tool enhancement to automate that.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you can use numbers even when there are none in the headings. #[Heading]_3 will go to the third heading by that name, thanks to Mediawiki magic. Explicit numbering is of course clearer. –LPfi (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi: After editing the third "Heading" section, I get shown the first one. Also, not distinguishing makes the Edit Summaries ambiguous.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

True. But linking works with the implicit numbering, i.e. the numbers can be used before explicitly added. –LPfi (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about open deletion request

Why is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nix_best_view.jpg not in the list of open deletion requests from March 2022? Renerpho (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Because our deletion request subpage transclusion system has outgrown the (IMHO antiquated) template include size limit imposed by developers with just the first 13 days' entries. See membership in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Once our intrepid Admins have processed the first seven or so days' requests, it should show up. We could adapt with a week-based system like the archives of m:srg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I see - thanks, Jeff G.. Renerpho (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete page

How can i delete the whole page. Displayed on the non-non page. I can not delete. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alon_lanobel.jpg Thanks to anyone who can delete the page. Drorgloberman (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Drorgloberman: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alon lanobel.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Bad deletion reasons page?

I'm thinking of writing an essay about bad reasons people offer for deleting files. First of all, does a page already exist that lists bad deletion reasons and explains why they're bad, and second, does Commons accept essays? Among the bad reasons I'd bring up are "this is an old photo", "the filename should be changed", "the description should be changed", "this file, which is used on 10 Wikipedias to illustrate hentai, is pornographic," "you have to delete this file, which I uploaded 10 years ago and is used on 10 Wikipedias, just because I don't want it to be publicly viewable anymore," "we know this is a 19th-century photograph, but because we don't know who took the photo, it has to be deleted" and "this is out of scope because I lack the imagination to realize that a photo of a house, a penis with all its parts labeled, a person wearing a traditional hat, an intersection of two streets, or any number of other subjects that are part of the broad scope of human knowledge covered on wikis is on-topic". If a similar page does not already exist, what I'd like to do is start writing this up, welcome for anyone to edit it, and hope that it becomes accepted as a useful guideline page that can be linked to in DR discussions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: That's a great idea. In addition, it'll be a good idea to have another page about bad reasons for speedy deletion (which may be legitimate reasons for regular deletion), such as: no FOP, low-res professional portrait, photo of a film photo with no source, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Should I start my essay in my userspace and link it here, then ask where to move it when it seems ready? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My pet-peeve bad DR reason is the plain "copyvio" claim without any explanation why (IMO, such DR's that just cast a vague accusation should be speedily closed as "incomplete"). Another questionable DR reason is "small size and missing EXIF data", which is not a deletion reason by itself. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

True. A problem with "copyvio" is does it refer to the image being stolen from someone or is it a claim of copyright for something depicted in the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I've started the page: User:Ikan Kekek/Bad deletion reasons. Please read it and edit it at will, or if you would like to discuss anything, please post to its talk page, and thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The "copyvio" or "no permission" are very confusing for a newbie uploader who have claimed "own work" in good faith. How do you defend against that? "Not a copyvio, permission granted"? There is a ton of explanations you have to wade through before getting even a grasp about why the files were tagged, and it is not at all clear what pages are the relevant ones. –LPfi (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like that language should be put in one place and made much clearer. Some other things that we clearly need to think about are how to indicate more clearly to users that they should edit file descriptions if they are inaccurate and how to request a filename change, because so many deletion requests are over these issues which don't involve deletion at all. Something else that has come up is where to start a thread about files that should not be deleted. I've seen a few such threads in DR, and they're nominations for files to not be deleted (which is not the same as undeleting already deleted files). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

LPfi helped the page with a link to a relevant policy page. I feel like additional links to policy and guideline pages would help bring the page closer to being ready to move out of the user page. I'm not nearly as familiar with such pages as many of those reading this thread, so please help out at User:Ikan Kekek/Bad deletion reasons if you have a spare moment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:My girl (8111576386).jpg? From my participation at COM:VIC, I'm accustomed to think of the word "scope" as literally describing the subject we are looking at, and I think that is the common meaning of the word. Should it be specified somewhere that "out of scope" means "Commons does not cover this subject" and that if what you mean to say is that a photo is too poor-quality to be worth hosting here, you should say that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

IMHO "out of scope" does not mean "Commons does not cover this subject" but "file not realistically useful for an educational purpose". And, in the end, it may include most of the deletions in Wikimedia Commons not related to copyright. Strakhov (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing yourself clearly on this. The problem is that there are many deletion requests for files described as "out of scope" that are of perfectly acceptable quality, certainly as thumbnails for use in articles, and on-topic, so it would be much clearer if nominators would be specific about the reason for a nomination being that a photo is so bad that it's not usable even at thumbnail size, or that the subject matter is so common that the photo is not good enough to merit keeping. In addition, much of the time that "out of scope" is used, it's for subjects that really are not within the scope of Wikimedia, such as publicity photos of non-notable people or logos of non-notable companies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Anusha Rai.jpg

It is saying Image is copyrighted i have taken from facebook kindly some one help me. Ntkn766 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ntkn766: See User talk:Ntkn766#You may be blocked soon.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello

This flag I forgot to put that it's a picture from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia_(1281).svg is WP:OR, explained on talk page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Serbia#Flag_of_Stefan_Vladislav it should be deleted. We have a problem with it on the English wikipedia, they keep bringing it back. Edit war lasts 4 years with that flag. look here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Serbia&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia_(medieval)&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Vladislav&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Serbian_flags&action=history78.1.7.81 23:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, there is nothing we can do about that here on Commons. Please report at en:WP:AN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I forgot to put that it's a picture from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia_(1281).svg but it is used on English wikipedia maybe you can do something with this problem78.1.7.81 00:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I added {{Fact disputed}}, as suggested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Serbia (1281).svg. What alternative do you have for it?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have very little understanding of Wikipedia rules. I just wanted to report a problem, because the edit war with that picture is going on for a long time almost 4 years. I hope you will decide the best way to solve this problem. On talk page picture is not allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Serbia#Flag_of_Stefan_Vladislav but they persistently return the image and then it is worth nothing. I thought only deleting that image would help. Or at least forbid that it can somehow be put on those 4 pages. I don't know, you know best.78.1.7.81 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any other flag on Commons (or elsewhere) that would be a better representation of the flag of Serbia in 1281? Please be specific.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the flag from 1281 has not been scientifically proven to have looked like that, as can be read from the conversation about that flag. And then I don't know what kind of flag would be placed, because it would be a guess and it would be incorrect like that flag . It's stupid to me that someone put up that flag from 1281, and it hasn't been scientifically proven what that flag looked like, so it's better that it's not there until the real flag is put up.78.1.7.81 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Will replace" as a deletion reason

Hi, everyone, and particularly admins:

I've seen a lot of examples of deletion requests with the reason given of "I will replace this file with another version" or something similar. If it were up to me, I would summarily reject such deletion requests, for the simple reason that people who say they will replace a file might either forget to do so or even be lying in some cases. My reply to all such deletion requests would be: "If you just want to upload a new version of the file, use the 'Upload a new version of this file' button in the lower left of the file page, and if you want to upload a new picture of the same motif, go ahead and then feel free to request deletion." And in any case, deleting older pictures of a motif should never be automatic. So why is it that some admins (at least one I've noticed) seem to automatically delete files on this basis, and do you keep track of whether the promised newer versions do get uploaded within a certain timeframe after the deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ikan. Thanks for bringing up these good points. Very often it is the uploader giving such deletion reason. In such cases, I will delete the file since the DR can be regarded as a COM:CSD #G7: Author or uploader request deletion. Of course, if it was not nominated by the uploader or the file is in use, you are right, and the DR should be rejected. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Doesn't G7 apply to uploads within a week, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct. But we are talking here about regular DR's, so I give somewhat greater leeway. I see no reason not to grant courtesy deletions for up to a month or more if the image was never used. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanations. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons Android App problems

Should we discuss these here? Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Md Samrat Islam.jpg. User:OliCol11 pointed out the problems:

1. The app doesn't give any information on usage of the image.
2. There doesn't exist any wikipedia/wikidata item matching the description of the image
3. The app explicitly states "selfie" as a reason for being out of scope

The app gives three options for an image being out of scope. "It is out of scope because it is:

• A selfie
• Blurry
• Nonsense

How can the Commons Android App be edited? "Nonsense" is a nonsensical and sometimes insulting deletion reason. Blurry is a good reason in many but not all situations, depending on how blurry the photo is at thumbnail size and whether there is another useful photo in a given scope. The fact that a photo is a selfie is not per se a deletion reason, although most selfies are of non-notable people, and furthermore, there are loads of non-selfies that are out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I advertised this discussion at VP/T. Brianjd (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Syced, lead Commons talk:Mobile app helper for the COM:APP developers.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for caring!

First, please let me share why we developed this feature: we believe that many images on Commons are out of scope, and that the problem will only get worse in the future as desktop users become a tiny minority. So we want to do something about it, in a scalable way if possible. Sounds good so far?

Just to get an idea of the scope of the problem, how many erroneous selfie deletion requests did you get from the app in September 2022?

I agree that the app's review screen could be improved. For instance, how about displaying tke number of articles that use the image, adding a link to the official criteria, and adding a link the the webpage of the image?

How can the Commons Android App be edited?

Good news, the app is 100% open source and in particular labels can be easily edited at https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/blob/master/app/src/main/res/values/strings.xml#L529 Please do not hesitate to send pull requests or issues describing what you believe would be the ideal user interface. Thanks everyone! Syced (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Syced, what would be the most effective way to search archives of closed deletion requests from September to see how many of them erroneously referred to selfies or correctly referred to selfies that were in use and properly licensed, and therefore ineligible for deletion? The perception of those of us who have been dealing with deletion requests is that the worst offenders among the users of the Android app are those who give "Nonsense" as their reason, but "Selfie" is probably second, with "Blurry" also being problematic at times. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek I think that’s missing the point. The point is that ‘selfie’ is never a valid reason for deletion. wiktionary:selfie explains the issues with the word ‘selfie’ and, ironically, displays a selfie that is most definitely notable.

Having realised that, perhaps all that is necessary is to search the deletion requests for the phrase It is A selfie.

Try this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=%22It+is+A+selfie%22+subpageof%3A%22Deletion+requests%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22It+is+A+selfie%5C%22%22%2C%22subpageof%22%3A%22Deletion+requests%22%7D%7D&ns4=1 Brianjd (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that "selfie" is never per se a deletion reason, but Syced wants to know how many such nominations were problematic beyond that, I believe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Brianjd! I searched for Because it is A selfie and the number of erroneous deletion requests for that last month was 1. I agree that it is one too many. We unfortunately have a very limited number of developers and we all are volunteers, with a great number of other priorities, so it is difficult to promise anything, but let's try and find ways to reduce the number of such erroneous requests in the future. By the way, thanks a lot to all of you who review deletion requests! Something that we can do quickly is change the text of each of the three deletion reasons, I created a task at https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/5100 about rewording these reasons, please feel free to suggest better ideas there, by the way each could be reworded to some totally different for a picture to be considered out of scope. Syced (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Syced How quickly could you get rid of the reasons entirely? There’s no equivalent in the web interface, just a text box for users to type their own message. Or do we want to take some other approach? Pinging @Ikan Kekek, Jeff G., with hopes that more users will join this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I just saw three in a row today (Commons:Deletion requests/File:KJ89frFVjy1Jq9iA6-M3g7wlnEUC-khd DtC JGQWiSEy8HoqCc4x1z--rKjmE12eBJ-E5Sf 2DAjbPI1T9F3sr6.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Найменший подорожувальник.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Van der Laan Thim jr..jpg). Brianjd (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

There has certainly been more than one DR called a "selfie" that was not a selfie or that was in use, but it might be that the ones I'm thinking of were in October. Syced, you might want to talk to Achim about how many bad DRs we've been getting from people using the Android app. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

So last month is not a good example because it had less cases than other months, understood. Changing the UI takes much more time than just changing strings, and then there are a few months of beta testing before actual release. How about changing "because it is a selfie" to "because it is completely dark", for instance? Also, maybe we should let users review only pictures that have been uploaded using the app. Syced (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Syced I really think the app needs that textbox (with or without a list of standard reasons), even if that would take a few months. In the meantime, we should try to replace the strings with common strings from legitimate DRs, such as ‘because it is an unused personal image’. Brianjd (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Brianjd: That would just be "Qualifies for CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors)", a reason for a speedy tag, not a DR. Good stock reasons for a DR include "No freedom of panorama for that type of photo where it was taken.", "Unlikely to be own work given the uploader's history.", and "Courtesy request by uploader after 7 days; not in use."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

To me, "Because it is Nonsense" is probably a worse offender, even though being a selfie is not per se a valid deletion reason, because that phrase is an insult to the image but does not state what is wrong with it. So I think it's very important to remove that as a possible reason for deletion. "Because it is out of scope" is a good reason, as long as Android users can see whether the file in question is in use or not. I think "Because it is blurry" is reasonable, but I've seen Android users not understand that what really matters is whether a photo is usable at thumbnail size, so a good substitution would be "Because it is so blurry it is unusable at thumbnail size." Is it possible to have a choice that long in the app? Some other good reasons are "Inaccurate 'own work' claim," "Freedom of panorama issue" and "Mediocre to poor photo of genitals." Addressing the edit conflict: I think it is a good precaution to do regular deletion requests for what are apparently personal photos of or by non-contributors, because it's not that uncommon for such photos to be either of notable individuals or otherwise usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek I would rather not have the word ‘genitals’ coded into the app, and certainly not in this context. The policy is called Commons:Nudity, where there is a discussion about whether to include breasts. Comments like ‘Commons is not an amateur porn site’ seem to include all nudity. Finally, nudity is commonly mentioned in terms of use for online services, so the presence of that word should be less of a surprise than ‘genitals’.

Whatever strings we agree on, we must keep in mind the lack of a textbox and the lack of information (such as file usage) provided to the user. Brianjd (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek A reminder that ‘blurry’ is a problem too. I just saw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reni 39.b (cropped2).jpg, nominated as ‘blurry’: of course it’s blurry, because it’s a crop of an already low-resolution image. But the original image is not nominated for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Again: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kit shorts bra14h.png (‘blurry’, but widely used). Brianjd (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Brianjd: That nomination has the same problem as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kit right arm Fiorentina1718tb.png: misunderstanding of the use of standard association football kit files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 05:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I was about to note that many DRs are indeed opened for unused personal images (I think some even mention F10), and perhaps Ikan Kekek’s comment explains why. Brianjd (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what form of words should be used for mediocre to poor porn, but nudity should never be equated with porn. If it were, great artworks for thousands of years would all be reclassified as porn. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek We could just say ‘violates Commons’ nudity policy’, preferably with a link to that policy. Or we could just take it off the list until the app is better developed. There are more important reasons to delete files, some of which have already been mentioned. Another is: ‘shows an identifiable person without consent in a place where consent is required’. Brianjd (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. Agreed on both counts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek I realise now what the problem is. When I said ‘include all nudity’, I meant ‘include even images that are not focussed on genitals’; that phrase should be read in the context of ‘amateur porn site’. I certainly didn’t mean to include the artworks you refer to. Brianjd (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You said above that we need to keep in mind the lack of information on file usage being provided to the users of the Android app. That's of crucial importance. As long as they are not shown whether a file is in use, we will continue to get annoying DRs of files in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Policy on user page photos

The impetus for my starting this thread is the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1 about a photo that was the subject of a deletion request the same day it was uploaded.

First, is it a policy or guideline that all users who are active and not purely promotional accounts are allowed to upload one photo for their user page, or is that just an informal courtesy? Second, should we give users a grace period, say of 1 month, before allowing a deletion request on the basis that a user has no other edits on Wikimedia? If not, shall we stipulate that users may not upload a photo for their user page until they have made constructive edits on Wikimedia? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

One other question that might be good to address is what number of photos of themselves we might permit users to upload to their user page. We definitely don't want huge galleries. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed policy:

The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.

— Commons:Project_scope#in_use

Note the "is or was" (not "intends to be at some point in the future"), which to me reads quite clearly as "you need to be an actual active wikimedian before we let you upload personal stuff for decorating you user page". El Grafo (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. I still think it would be helpful to also state in as many words that you may not upload any images to your user page until you have made constructive edits on a Wikimedia site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I should say, though, I agree with your interpretation of that language, though I do think that the lack of wiggle room should be made explicit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me, although COM:SCOPE already is quite a wall of text. Maybe it would be a good idea to add a section on this to COM:FAQ too. El Grafo (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO we can't accept personal images (selfies, etc.) unless the user has at least several hundreds useful contributions on Wikimedia as a whole. Many users think Commons and Wikimedia is a social network, and their only contributions are an autobiography and a few personal images. These should be speedy deleted. Yann (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood, but it would be great to add that. Is 100 constructive contributions a good minimum number before personal images are allowed on a user page? 500? I think any number is fine as long as we clearly indicate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say at least 300 useful contributions as a whole. E.g., it could be 50 contributions on Commons and 250 on another project. Yann (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me. Is there anywhere else I should post to try to direct more traffic to this thread, so that we can have a wider consensus on this, or should we just make the addition unless someone objects? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Fine with me too. @Ikan Kekek: Commons talk:Deletion policy and COM:VPP are potential avenues of exploration.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good policy. Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I would support 500 edits, I mean 300 wouldn't be an overnight job to pass but 500's a nice round number, I'll be honest though I much prefer 1,000 edits but some may see that as excessive, –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A grace period of a month to see if the user makes any further contributions seems about right to me, with any non-zero number of constructive contributions being sufficient.

Most social media sites encourage users to upload a picture as part of the signup process. If somebody tries to do that here, giving them serious deletion warnings and notices that "Wikimedia Commons is not your free personal web host" within a few hours (or, looking at some live F10 warnings, within two minutes), may well be self-fulfilling in terms of constructive contributions, driving them away from the project.

The indented thread above this one seems to be saying that if someone joined Commons, uploaded 299 useful public domain images over a period of several months, then made an innocuous little user page with a selfie photo, we would speedily delete that selfie and shout at them for treating Commons like a personal web host? That doesn't sound right. Belbury (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious when new users are serious or not about improving Commons/WP. Their editing pattern will make that clear. So we don't need another arbitrary hard rule for the number of edits IMO. Just more work for admins to count the edits of every personal photo DR... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say policy, but a guideline of roughly 100 edits is acceptable. Basically if you don’t have at least a page of good-faith contributions somewhere you don’t need gratuitous userpage crap Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with a soft guideline of 100 edits, but ultimately it's up to the participants at the DR to decide; for these kinds of issues, I would lean much more towards straight-counting the !votes rather than trying to weigh them based on how policy-compliant they are, since it's highly subjective and more of a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. (Note that COM:CSD#F10 requires "no constructive global contributions", so a single significant edit is sufficient to prevent speedy deletion and require a DR, where hopefully consensus can form.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

IMHO Uploading a selfie as first edit is a fine way to practise how Commons works. It would be a good policy to allow selfies and images for the own user page UNLESS an account is a disruptive (only) contributor. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If we enforce the rules with a strict number (and possible a timeframe), we are restricting common sense and replace it with bureaucracy. Let's go very strict with 500 edits per year? So here's how to be allowed to create an account that is allowed to upload pictures in five easy steps:

1. Create a new account
2. Get Cat-a-lot
3. Make 500 meaningless re-categorizations, done in a few minutes
4. Do the rollback, thus making 500 meaningful contributions
5. Upload your profile picture which may not be deleted, for as long as you repeat steps 3+4 about once per year.

I'm writing this guide just to demonstrate that we don't need a fixed rule that can be easily circumvented; we need admins with good judgement who can distinguish contributors from non-cons. Someone who uploads a user-page picture first should not be immediately discouraged from participation - but if there are no further contributions coming for some days (or let's say: a month?), then there should not be problems with deleting the stuff again, based on the non-contributor policy. This should be done at the discretion of the DR-requestor and the admin who does the deletion: Obvious self-promo pictures can be cleaned out early to demonstrate the principles to newcomers, and make them reconsider how they contribute. A first selfie which is followed by pictures of a previously undocumented village, should however not get deleted, as per C.Suthorn above. A first selfie with no follow-up gets kicked out. A user who has uploaded only a dozen pictures of decent quality over several years but has done nothing else here and is mostly active in their native language wiki, is still be considered a valuable contributor, so that they may still upload a user-page picture despite their low edit-count. And even users in great standing with heaploads of edits and a few thousand good uploads, should still not be enabled to also upload hundreds of images of mere personal interest and create dozens of photo-galleries of their cats/babies/beach holidays. This is how I interpret the user-page exemption from the scope. --Enyavar (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree! And that is how it has been working already. No need for additional bureaucracy. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that no additional bureaucracy is needed, unless the proponents of more bureaucracy show examples of cases where not having that additional bureaucracy has been harmful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think at least the point of whether it is or is not OK to immediately request deletion of a user page photo the same day it was uploaded should be addressed. If that is a firm policy on Commons, it should be included in the welcome message or FAQ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Licensing tutorial displayed in the Upload Wizard.

I think there is a consensus that more bureaucracy is generally not helpful. But we still face the question of how to handle personal photos uploaded by new users. Let’s put that in context. Wikimedia Commons is not like social media: a key difference is that all media is shown as part of one giant repository, rather than being shown as part of individual users’ profiles. We all know that, but do new users know that? Also, do new users understand Wikimedia Commons’ scope?

Shown here is all the information displayed in the Upload Wizard prior to the files being selected. It’s titled What can I upload to Wikimedia Commons?. This suggests that it contains everything a new user needs to know to select suitable files to upload. But, actually, it’s just a licensing tutorial; it contains none of the important information mentioned in the previous paragraph. Is this part of the problem? Brianjd (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In the draft of my previous post I had included a complaint that new users aren't informed on the matter. But then just before submitting my argument, I checked out what is linked in the Welcome-template, and the scope is mentioned in the FAQ; and I found "don't upload party photos etc" in the Tutorial guide. Of course we could mention that stuff on three more pages or something... but in the end, who is willing to read all the rules if it's just repeating over and over? I would argue that it's more difficult to find the exemption case from the rule, and the rule is pointed out pretty clear. --Enyavar (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Party pictures are not the same as portraits, whether selfies or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever we do, let's not exclude people from uploading images for their userpages who have not been activ on commons yet - a) is there no good reason, why someone active on multiple other projects should not be able to have an image of themselves on their userpages that is stored here b) would we close a door that could lead to more useful contributions to commons from editors currently active elsewhere. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but our policy (cited above) clearly states "Commons or another project". I don't think anybody was proposing to change that. El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone suggested something like this further up, but I am not going to dig through the whole thread again to find this Kritzolina (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That would be very much against Commons' basic principles in my opinion: We don't meddle with what other projects consider useful. El Grafo (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kritzolina I don’t see anything like that. Indeed, I see the opposite. @Enyavar’s well-received comment says: A user who … is mostly active in their native language wiki, is still be considered a valuable contributor, so that they may still upload a user-page picture despite their low edit-count. Brianjd (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it depends, that's why I say we don't need hard rules but competent admins. We still meddle all the time - like when copyright gets violated. And let's not forget "valuable" new users who are only here and in the other projects to promote their stuff - which they still shouldn't, despite the other projects not (yet) taking action. "My fictional country gets a Wiki article in my sandbox/user page" happens every day, and that is just one thing that I have by now seen hundreds of times. Facing possible abuse of Commons' good will, Commons still shouldn't de-tooth and de-claw itself. --Enyavar (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar I think this is well-established: we don’t middle with what other projects consider useful: the crap that some self-promoting user added without the approval of those other projects doesn’t count. Brianjd (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. And copyright issues are a completely separate matter that has nothing to do with how useful something is. El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned with trying to make a precise rule here. Someone can make a small number of excellent contributions. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)