Category talk:Unused personal files

Archives Categories for discussion (2018-01)

Delete'm

There are more than 1000 (one thousand) UPFs waiting for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that User:Stas1995 is inactive, who does this? -Apocheir (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Apocheir :) --E4024 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have User:Stas1995's script and I don't have the time to write my own at this moment. It would be best if the script checked that the images truly are not used, since they could have gotten used since they were added to this category. -Apocheir (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries. User:EugeneZelenko is an expert on deletions and has a couple of stars on the shoulders. :) --E4024 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it'll be reasonable to ask Stas1995 to share his script, preferably on his user's subpages on Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively you could suggest this task on Commons:Bots/Work requests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The script is VFC only /St1995 21:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete most of them

Most pics here are out of scope. Many of them have been proposed for DR by users who have been reverted. Therefore there is no other way to clean up this page than to re-propose the deletion of those (more or less "same") files. If there is a problem with this, please revert my coming DRs; but I think that is not the right thing to do. We should better concentrate on the files and defend the deletion or stay of them according to the files' own merits. I guess I'm right. --E4024 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I would appreciate you trying to explain your point more fully.

If you see images where you think the "keep" conclusion of a DR was a mistake, one of your options is to request a deletion review, where you explain why you disagree with the closing administrator's conclusion. Did you try that for any of the images that concern you? Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Images of sites of note, that contain anonymous tourists, should not be considered "unused personal files", that merit deletion

Images of sites of note, that contain anonymous tourists, should not be considered "unused personal files", that merit deletion.

Sites of note, like the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, or even every scenic trail in National Parks, or Forest Reserve, is in scope. They are in scope, even if they contain tourists.

Now when an image shows tourists, and the description says it was taken at a site of note, but there is nothing in the image that shows the site, okay, treat it as an unused personal image.

But our images of sites of note, visited by tourists, should include both images with no tourists, and images with tourists. Someone could need to use an image with tourists. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)