This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"The uploader is the subject depicted in the image" as reason for deletion
The uploader is the subject depicted in the image
On deletion requests, I often see "The uploader is the subject depicted in the image. So we need COM:VRT permission from the original photographer to host the file" or variations of this statement. That the uploader is the subject may often be a reason to *suspect* a claim of "own work" is false, I would say it is far from a universally definitive argument that claim of "own work" *must* be false. Self timers on cameras have existed for more than a century, and in recent decades are common even in inexpensive consumer cameras. Self timers are very easy to use. Is there some reason that they should be considered a reason for deletion? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
So the way I generally deal with this is to evaluate the images based on various criteria from the most likely to be the uploaders own work to it not likely to be their own work. Like if the image was uploaded by rapper for the purposes of self promotion and it looks professionally done then it's clearly not their own work. If it's just some rando standing in front of their fridge and the image wasn't taken with an $8,000 camera then whatever. I don't really care either way. I'm not going to give someone who is obviously uploading images for promotional reasons the benefit of the doubt that everything else they are doing is completely above board though. It's to easy for someone to slap a own work license on something while being completely ignorant about what the purpose of the license is. A lot of people also seem to think that they somehow automatically own the copyright license to something because they paid for it or whatever. It's not like it's super hard to confirm they took picture with a self timer either. I'm perfectly fine withdrawn a deletion nomination in most cases if someone just says that's how the picture was taken. To me COM:VRT permission is only really necessary when the photograph looks professionally done or the EXIF information says it's copyrighted/taken from Facebook. I don't expect random users to to file COM:VRT permission for their amateur user page selfies though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like we're basically on the same page - a reason to be suspicious, but not by itself something that demands deletion or VRT? On deletion requests, it seems to me that often nominators assume that uploader is the subject of the photo is by itself a reason to delete. - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd: It would be best if the instructions at COM:Redundant policy specified that the deleting Admin must replace any remaining use(s) of any redundant file(s) they are about to delete. It must be done in this order to eliminate race conditions. Letting anyone else do the replacement before that would be premature. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. The same race condition exists with in-use files that have factual disputes, but in that case, no one cares. Users keep pointing out the disputes in DRs, and other users keep dismissing them with references to COM:INUSE. Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. What discretion? A file that is legitimately in use is automatically in scope and not subject to deletion for quality issues; the only thing left for an admin to do is to write Kept: In use. at the bottom of the DR. At least, that is the clear message I got from DRs of that type. Brianjd (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd: If there is a file here that is in use on another project, but that use is disputed in an edit war, after en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (or local equivalent) steps are followed an Admin (or Arbitrator) on that other project needs to step in and resolve the edit war in favor of removal or replacement of that file before an Admin here will be willing to close a DR for that file as delete. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I don’t know if any of the examples I saw were actually subject to dispute resolution on other projects. I will sometimes investigate activity on other projects, but users cannot be expected to do so in general. Brianjd (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
User uploads
Hello - this policy ought to be adjusted to allow users to delete their own photographs. Indeed, I am not sure why users can upload, but cannot undo their uploads. Even if I upload my own photograph under CC BY-SA, the license clarifies that I cannot revoke the license, so the image is relatively free in perpetuity. Yet it makes no mention of a host website. If I do not want a photograph I own and uploaded to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, I should be able to make that choice to remove my own single or multiple images with ease. The image is still technically free for others to share whenever/wherever. ɱ(talk)00:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree with that. At least they have the 7 day curtesy period. It's kind of arbitrary though and it's still a hassle sometimes to get a file deleted even if it's within the time period. Like onetime I uploaded an image that was wrongly cropped, did a speedy deletion request within the 7 day period, and then an administrator turned into a normal deletion request. So I then had to ask the administrator to just delete the file like I had originally requested. Which they did, but it was still more hassle then it should have been. That was within the window where it should have been easy to delete the image to. Either way, I don't think most people are going to be encouraged to upload their images if they subsequently have zero control over them. There's nothing about the CC BY-SA license that requires an image using it has to be hosted on Commons either. So I don't really see why allowing a user to delete their uploads if they want to would be an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That'd be a major policy change. We could have large amounts of images featured prominently in multiple articles in many languages suddenly disappear with no notice. As an admin, on deletion requests I generally tend to give uploaders the benefit of a doubt a bit longer than the mandatory 7 days, if there are potential problems like personality rights, or if it is unused and doesn't seem of any particular in scope usefulness. However if an image has been on Wikimedia for a long time, if there is no obvious problem or explanation, I like most other admins tend to want a better reason than "I changed my mind (5 years later)" to approve deletion. (Consider as well: You correctly note that the Creative Commons &c free licenses are not revocable -- well, one possible outcome would be if you'd delete one of your uploads, someone else could then upload the exact same file, as long as they properly give attribution to you per the license.) If there was a practical way to do so, I wouldn't object to giving uploaders automatic ability to delete their uploads within 7 days (I'd have no problem with twice that long), but not forever at any time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Great, well, as it reads now, the system is oppressive. I don't honestly care how many articles an image is being used in if I remove it from Commons. If I have a problem with one of my own images I photographed and uploaded here, I should have access to deletion, no questions asked, no time taken, etc. I own the rights to the photograph, not a Commons admin. ɱ(talk)16:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
And anyone who has a copy of your photo has the right to reupload it to Commons, as long as you are properly attributed. We have the same policy toward free photos found on Flickr or elsewhere on the Internet; to disallow that would mean giving some kind of special status to images first published on Commons. If we allowed users to delete their own uploads, a single admin (or even a normal user who previously downloaded your photo) could undo all of that. So there is no effective way to enable this ability without fundamentally changing how Commons works. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠00:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It sounds to me that it isn't Commons "system" you find oppressive, but the nature of the free license, which presumably you'd already agreed to. (Unless you'd have no objection to being able to delete all your own uploads on Commons, only to have anyone else promptly reupload them all to Commons with same license and attribution, and you having nothing you could do about it.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
IMO extending the grace period to two weeks and allowing the uploader to delete the file themselves within that time frame would be a good compromise between what we have now, which clearly isn't optimal, and potentially allowing people to delete their uploads years later when the images are being used on other projects. That said, the whole idea that someone shouldn't be able to delete their own images because they might be used on another project seems like a red herring since only a small amount of images on here are being used on other projects anyway. Same goes for the thing about people potentially just re-uploading the images, which is something Commons already has to deal with. That said, I don't think either one would necessarily be an issue within two weeks of the person uploading the files. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment "I don't honestly care how many articles an image is being used in if I remove it from Commons" sounds to me rather like a statement of not caring about the mission of Commons and the Wikimedia projects as a whole - I'm rather puzzled why someone with such an attitude would be making contributions here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes the dysfunctional and obnoxious editors here make me unwilling to make further contributions. So what? Dumb policies like this further increase my aggravation with the broken system. ɱ(talk)16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Y'all can wikilawyer all the bullshit you want, but if I agree to host a photo here today, I shouldn't have to agree to continue that hosting here tomorrow. Forcing users into such a binding agreement is oppressive. And sure, technically, other users can undo some deletions or potentially re-upload. Does that mean they should? That's up to them. ɱ(talk)15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What are we talking about (to clarify your first point)? Are you talking about you publishing it under a free licence elsewhere (e.g. CC-by on Flickr) and then someone else moving it here? Or else you uploading it here, then deciding you don't want it here any more?
I would see both of these as invalid. If you CC licence it on Flickr, you have CC licensed it to the whole universe under those terms. CC licences don't allow site-, user- or geographic limits (some old US gov stuff used to have no-Cuba licensing, and as a result, that wasn't reusable).
If you upload here and change your mind, then either we might do that as a courtesy (up to 7 days, that would be an uncontroversial default), or because of the later revelation of something like a personal rights problem, but in general we wouldn't. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg for how that can go!
"deciding you don't want it here any more" is an absolute no. If anyone really wants to do that, then I'd support an immediate indef ban of them. Because these projects are constructed on an irrevocable licence to the content added (words and pictures). We have to be able to rely on that. If anything threatens that, they have to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The license doesn't require the photographer to host the image on Commons. It can still be CC BY and I should still be able to undo an upload. Your attempts to make it an absolute mandate are tyrannical. Why the fuck should Commons have power overriding the photographer & uploader's wishes? ɱ(talk)17:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
As a comparison, on the English Wikipedia, the text I write is available under a CC license. Even if my words are changed or removed, they are still in the article history licensed under CC, and can be used again under that license. Printed or screenshotted copies of the article are still valid and CC-licensed, even if the content is gone. And editors there can remove their own content for a plethora of reasons. Yet here, my contributions cannot be removed, even as photographers should probably have more rights over their content than writers? ɱ(talk)17:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
And editors there can remove their own content for a plethora of reasons - you are very mistaken, English Wikipedia explicitly and strongly dismisses the idea that editors have any special rights over "their own content", see w:Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Most of these arguments here have the flawed logic that the act of deletion is a violation of the license agreement. When an image is deleted here for being out of scope, like some prom photos I recently argued for deletion, does that mean the images are no longer CC BY? No, they can be used anywhere else under that license, and can technically be reuploaded here. So if I wished to delete one of my own images, I am not wishing to alter the license, and I am not banning anyone else from sharing and reusing it. ɱ(talk)17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
IMO this is partially correct - a free licensed image deleted from Commons remains free licensed. It can still be used under that free license in places other than Commons. However the deletion in such cases is a *procedural action* by Wikimedia Commons as an institution that wherever else that free licensed image might or might not be, it does not belong on Wikimedia Commons. Being free licensed is a prerequisite for media being legally uploaded to Commons, not a reason by itself. Commons:Project scope is an official policy of Wikimedia Commons. It seems to me that your proposal would negate Commons having any official policies on scope and deletion, kicking decisions down to the whims of each individual uploader. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
At the end of the day what's the difference between the whims of two rando users in a deletion request (or really in most cases the whims of the person who initiated the request) and the whims of the person who uploaded the file? It's ridiculous to act like me as a rando nobody who can nominate any file I want for deletion for any number of reasons has more authority or ability to judge what's worth deleting and when then the person who uploaded the image in the first place. Like take Andy Dingley's comment. Going by that, if I nominate an image of a logo for deletion "because OOS" or whatever, that's perfectly reasonable and the image will probably be deleted whatever the actual facts about logos being in scope or not are. But then if an uploader does a deletion request just because they rather take their images elsewhere according to Andy Dingley they should be perma blocked. The whole thing is completely nonsensical and disproportionality favors the opinions of likely ignorant users over the actual contributors.
To give another semi-related example, I can spend months working in a particularly niche area and then all it takes is a few ignorant randos who have zero experience in that area to come along and take issue with something I'm doing for me to be reported to ANU and/or be blocked for vandalism or some nonsense. Where's even the incentive to contribute at that point? There's a point where we should trust people know what's best for their own contributions and the areas they work in. If someone uploads a crap quality image of some niche, insignificant topic and wants it to be delete because they changed their mind then why not trust their judgement about it? It's not like the one or two people who would vote in a deletion request know anything special about the image or have some kind of telepathic initiation about what's good for the project or not compared to the uploader. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a difference between deleting for content reasons and for licence withdrawal. If you say, "the prom photos should go", then why are you doing that? It could be, "there's a personal rights issue with the subject"; could be "the quality is too bad", maybe "they're just selfies" or it could be "I withdraw my licence for these".
Now the first of these are in agreement with Commons. Or at least, potential agreement after discussion. We all decide they're OOS (or not) and they go. All are happy. But withdrawing the licence is a conflict with Commons. Commons doesn't withdraw licences. We start doing that, the whole project falls apart. That's why it's an absolute under CC (this was a topic known and raised at the time we created CC, because it was affecting other free software licences). So if you, the photographer, says "withdraw the licence" that's essentially antagonistic to Commons, and on a topic that Commons just can't afford wiggle room over. Commons also (by virtue of how CC is worded) has a strong basis for doing so (legally at least, ignoring the moral issues).
"Why should Commons have power overriding the uploader's wishes?" is a red herring. The uploader's wishes (at the time of upload, assuming competence and consent) were that this should now be licensed, and licensed irrevocably. That's what the clicky-boxes mean. OK, so people make mistakes, they make choices when they're not sufficiently informed to give real consent over this. We should recognise that, and that's why we allow courtesy deletion on that basis (up to 7 days). It's not about uploaders changing their mind, it's to cover uploaders who hadn't fully set their mind (in full knowledge of the implications) to support this licensing in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
You all have quite the walls of text, and I just got up, so I'll read more later. But I said nothing about withdrawing licenses. You're attacking a straw man. I deliberately clarified that deleting an image is not altering the license. "A free licensed image deleted from Commons remains free licensed." ɱ(talk)15:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If an in-scope image still has the valid licence, why would Commons delete it? Does it matter if we call this "uploader request" or "uploader wishes to revoke the licence" – neither of these would be reason for Commons to delete.
What would then happen if another uploader then re-uploaded it, citing the old free licence? AFAICS, we would have no grounds to refuse that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
God, read my arguments. YES, it matters what we call it. I said nothing about wishing to revoke a license. You are attacking a straw man in a field I DO NOT OWN. As I said plainly and clearly, an image can be deleted from Commons and still retain its license. This happens every day. And yes, the image can still be re-uploaded later on, it is still CC BY. ɱ(talk)17:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
So why should Commons delete the item? Because Commons wants to? (it's OOS, both parties agree) Because it's a courtesy (yes, up to 7 days) Because it should never have been here? (Yes, if that's demonstrated) Because the licence has been revoked (no, licences can't).
Other than these, why would Commons act on a simple photographer / uploader request to delete? Sure, Commons could choose to do that. Sites like Flickr are set up for user-controlled hosting of user content. But that's not Commons' role: Commons is here to back-end the Wikipedias, and to offer a similar role to any other consumer. But it has never been a creator-focussed site like Flickr. That's why selfies are largely OOS here, per COM:WEBHOST. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I've always interpreted COM:WEBHOST as being about what content is appropriate for Commons. Not what type of deletion policies there are at any given time. commons doesn't automatically become a webhost just because uploaders can delete their own files though, anymore then it is one now because anyone off the street aside from the uploader can request an image be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
And it's not a red herring that Commons has power overriding the photographer-uploader's wishes. Wishes can change for any number of reasons. Someone may request a photographed area or person be removed, and the uploader agrees to it. The photos could have been uploaded as part of a larger set mistakenly, and the uploader only realizes a month later. The uploader could have a problem with a contributor, subject area, or even Commons itself, and wish to withdraw their contributions. The uploader could have problems with stalking and not want to be identified based on where they live or travel. There's countless more reasons. You just care about respecting the uploader's initial wishes, and then forcing that decision down their throat. It's oppressive. ɱ(talk)15:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is a valid reason, a file can be deleted, as courtesy deletion or citing the underlying reason. Privacy reasons (including stalking) and mistakes are generally seen as valid. What we should be discussing are the reasons that are not seen as valid. Those include getting in conflict with Commons or wanting to profit from an image that got famous (or just appreciated) since its upload. If images in use could be covered by arbitrary request by uploader (or straight uploader deletions), an uploader would be in a position where they could destroy the works of others (such as an article, or a carefully designed book, which would suddenly have some images disappear). Unused images are less problematic, but if they aren't needed, courtesy deletions might be possible. Uploading your images by a free licence is making a donation to the free universe; what institutions allow your withdrawing made donations if you get upset or just find better use for what you gave them? –LPfi (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"Uploading your images by a free licence is making a donation to the free universe" is silly. When I write on Wikipedia; when I upload a photo to Flickr, Facebook, any other social media site, Imgur, etc. - I have control over my content. I can undo or delete. As a photographer, I should especially have that right, even if it keeps the license. Some users here are thinking, after 7 days, I will not have any rights to my images. It's an oppressive and incorrect reading of copyright terms. ɱ(talk)22:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
As noted above, the claim that When I write on Wikipedia [...] I have control over my content. I can undo or delete is very wrong.
And per Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, any media that we upload to Commons has to be under a license that "that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose"; where "anyone" obviously includes Commons itself. So I'm very curious about the legal reasoning that is behind your an oppressive and incorrect reading of copyright terms claim. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Your comments above and below show one thing - you want what's best for Commons. Unlimited rights to valid content, and no control from its users. It's making me less willing to participate. We have to be willing to allow photographers who upload a larger degree of control over our own content. ɱ(talk)22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if you look at comparable "free universe" projects outside of Wikimedia people still have a large amount of control over the content they contribute. To give one example, anyone can delete something they add to OpenStreetMap. There isn't even a formal review process involved there either. Same goes for free software on Github. As far as I know nothing stops someone from deleting their repository if they want to or doing a pull request to overwrite an early change. Even commercial software has the same stipulations. Anyone can delete their own comments from Reddit or Twitter if they feel like it. I can do all kinds of things to image I upload to Flickr. The idea that it's just baked into the cake that the uploader doesn't control their content due to it being a "free universe" or whatever is completely ridiculous. I can understand some of the reasons why uploaders shouldn't be able to delete their own uploads, for instance rage quitting, but that doesn't mean them not having control over their uploads wasn't a choice made the community or that it can't be changed if we feel like changing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Same goes for free software on Github. As far as I know nothing stops someone from deleting their repository - that's a very misguided comparison; GitHub overall is not a collaborative project. But individual free software projects are, and no, they will not allow contributors to arbitrarily remove lines of code that they had contributed years earlier, most maintainers will reject such pull requests. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Why is this "silly" ? As a description of the situation? Or as a silly thing for anyone to do with their content? If you think it is, then maybe don't do this with your content – it's up to any uploader to choose if they want to do this, no-one is forced to.
I see no way in which we could relax this or "allow photographers who upload a larger degree of control over [their] own content" without that then making Commons significantly unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Broadly, extending courtesy deletions to anything not INUSE ?
No, I wouldn't support that (although wouldn't strongly oppose it). It introduces a new adversarial aspect where Commons will "defend" content that it wants to keep. This is inconsistent treatment of two items with identical status as to how they were placed here, just because of how they're used afterwards. It's also (although an expansion of courtesy deletion) likely to be seen as a refusal of courtesy deletion when INUSE.
This is too much like the monkey selfie. The louder the photographer complained of the financial losses they were suffering, the more obstinate Commons became at displaying "their" new monkey selfie. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
That's fair. I image there would be a way negate a lot of that, but heck if I can say off the top of my head how to. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading through the discussion above, these policy change demands rest on several clearly mistaken assumptions about copyright, licenses and the customs of other collaborative projects like Wikipedia.
This "mine, mine, mine" reasoning also ignores that fact that right after an image is uploaded, other users are investing their volunteer work in it too - e.g. by reviewing it for copyright violations, scope or other issues, or categorizing it and otherwise improving metadata. That's how Commons builds it value over time, distinguishing us from an uncurated repository of individual uploads such as Flickr. Allowing uploaders to arbitrarily pull the rug out from under this collaborative labor is not fair to these other contributors. In a wider perspective, yielding to such ownership claims also has the potential for creating unhealthy community dynamics in the long run, e.g. by incentivizing users to leverage "their" on-wiki "property" in discussions ("if image X is deleted / my policy change proposal Y is not approved / user Z is banned, I will delete all my unused FPs from the last 15 years from this project" etc.), or enabling trolling behavior of various kinds. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Soft deletion can be requested in one of the following cases:
By any user in good standing (UGS), on unused files uploaded by a sockpuppet evading a block or ban;
By the uploader, on unused files uploaded at any point in time in the past.
Procedurally, the rules for using soft deletion would be:
A user who meets the requirements above may tag a file as "pending soft deletion".
Any UGS may remove the tag for any reason. If this happens, the file becomes ineligible for soft deletion.
A patrolling admin who agrees to grant the soft deletion may do so after ensuring that the file has been tagged for at least 7 days and that no UGS has ever endorsed the file. A file is said to be endorsed by a UGS if a) it is in use; b) it has received any "keep" !votes from UGS at DR; or c) deletion tags of any kind have ever been removed by UGS from the file description page. A UGS may retroactively withdraw their endorsement of the file in order to allow the soft deletion to proceed, assuming no other objections.
Any admin may restore a soft-deleted file for any reason, and any UGS may petition any admin for such restoration. If the petition is made at COM:UNDEL, it should not be declined without a valid reason.
Very broadly. An action is said to be taken by a UGS if that person was entitled to take that action at that time. For example:
If a user is indefinitely banned/blocked, they are considered a UGS for all their edits prior to their ban/block.
If a sockpuppet of a banned/blocked user edits after the ban/block, they are not considered a UGS.
If a sockpuppet of a non-blocked or banned user edits, they are considered a UGS if they would have been entitled to make the same edit with their primary account (so for example, they would not be considered a UGS whenever they make !vote multiple times in the same discussion).
I do not agree. If an image is in scope, it should generally stay. Being a UGS does not make a user qualified to decide whether an arbitrary set of images is valuable. Neither does being an administrator make one qualified. There are many valuable images that aren't in use and nobody has the time to keep watching all sets of images they find useful. When the image is deleted, "softly" or not, there is no way for an ordinary user to find it, unless they know its name. Thus its undeletion will not be requested. That's why we have the DR process, which hopefully gets more eyes on any file before it is deleted. Anyone so inclined can check a banned users contributions for redundant files and request deletion on that ground (linking the equivalents). Likewise, a contributor can ask their files to be deleted as redundant or whatever good reason they find. –LPfi (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The "By the uploader" part is a bad idea for several reasons, e.g. that the "unused" criterion (basically, trying to turn COM:INUSE from a sufficient to a necessary condition in these situations) is prone to abuse - remove the image from the project wiki page where it is used and request speedy PROD deletion before someone on that project can inspect and revert the removal. But also on the more general grounds discussed above (such ownership behavior is fundamentally incompatible with Commons as a collaborative project; even a truly unused recently uploaded file is likely to already have significant - visible and invisible - work by other Commons users invested in it). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
"Small images without EXIF data"
Are we using this as a deletion reason again? (It's still not a policy)
Once again, this is being used to equate "no EXIF" (often not even true) with "we don't like this uploader, let's delete everything and ban them". The justification is that limited EXIF means "very unlikely to be own works."
If there's an allegation that something is a copyvio, then show that it's a copyvio. If EXIF is compulsory, then add that to policy and make that visible to uploaders before mass-deleting and banning them. But that's unconvincing around a mass delete like this, when each image has a very different status (some look like crops of web images, others like uploader's own photos).
This is not a policy. It never has been. It's widely abused as a means of banning new uploaders, just as gatekeeping Commons to Westerners, and that's far worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
"Small images without EXIF data" is symptom. Given that File:Mil mi 35 hind Indonesian army2017.jpg is most probably an image from the Indonesian Air Force claimed as "own work", and that everything else from this user is a copyright violation, it is most probable that these images are also copyright violations. This is very different than a user in good standing with a few images without EXIF data, in which case, the lack of EXIF would not be a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
If the helicopter image is a copyvio, then list it fopr deletion as a copyvio.
If the editor's past contribution history is so bad that they should be banned from uploading, without needing to check any further, then say that.
But claiming a reason that's of no relation to either justification or even the reality of the specific files listed under it is just misleading (and many other words I'm not allowed to use). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd say that's an example of something that is not by itself a reason for deletion in all cases, but is a good indicator for a closer look, since in practice correlation with copyright violation has been high (though not 100%). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Obviously we shouldn't, as that would be a terrible idea. But they meet this "Small images without EXIF data" criterion better than the ones here do. So is this a valid reason for deletion? (It isn't) And if it isn't, why is it still being used as one? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It looks to me that we're getting into tangents unrelated to what I was trying to say, so I'll try again. "Small image without EXIF" is NOT a reason by itself to delete. It IS one of many indicators that warrant a level of suspicion for a closer look to see if source/license is in order. (Other such indicators include Facebook EXIF, and that the user has uploaded a copyright violation in the past, etc) It is a good reason to examine - but not a reason to delete if everything else seems in order and perfectly plausible. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I think a speedy close as keep ("no valid reason for deletion") should be used for these requests, if spotted before the discussion has got going. Allowing such nominations to succeed sets bad precedent.
There have been several arguments in the deletion discussion and I have no reason to doubt all these are copyright violations, but I agree with AD that those other reasons should be told up front.
I understand that the janitors are overworked, but telling the real reasons for the request, such as now partly told later, will help immensely if somebody else is to take part in the discussion. Otherwise everybody, including the closing admin, has to do the same analysis without help on what to look for in each file. And if the request is closed as "per nom" (not uncommon), other people trying to understand Commons' deletion policy will just be confused.
As I already said many times, lack of EXIF is a symptom. Due to this and overall uploads by this user, there is some suspicion that these images are not own works (see the demonstration there). We have a policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, and we usually delete files for less suspicion than that. Why should we use a different standard here?
I am not interested by bickering about the wording. But if anyone has good arguments why we should keep or delete these files, I am all ears. Yann (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The bickering aside, it would have been good to mention the wider problem with the users' uploads in the original deletion request. Instead of making it about that after the fact and only when multiple people took issue with your reason for staring the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
My comment over there is relevant, it should probably have been made here instead. The essence was that regardless of whether Yann's deletion rationale is clear enough for the intended audience (and the deletion itself based on valid reasoning), formulating a transparent and formally valid rationale helps avoid this kind of discussions – and the frustration leading to them. Without such stringency, non-admins are left just to trust admins, with nothing to base that trust on. –LPfi (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yann, the words are the issue! Please just accept that and refer to the precautionary principle in this case and going forward! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
"Because I have uploaded a better quality and I don't know how to delete it myself"
I'm shocked to see the result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:My Family Sadhanagiri Lakshmikanth reddy.jpg. User:Gbawden deleted the file "per nomination," when it is precisely because it is not a selfie that it had to be deleted. "Because it is not a selfie but claimed to be own work" is often a deletion reason, because it also means that we don't have the photographer's permission to host the photo under a suitable license; "Because it is a selfie" is never a deletion reason. Can we please have images deleted for the right reasons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The right wording is "because it is a personal image by a non contributor". The wording of the warning is badly written IMO, as most personal images are not selfies. Something like "WM Commons is not a social network" would be more easily understood. Yann (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The Android app has several predefined reasons, among them this one. Months ago I asked if preventing DRs from Android is technically feasible, but unfortunately it isn't. Meanwhile I closed 100+ DRs, see [1]. --Achim55 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This is probably a stupid question, but what's the difference between your average modern picture of someone's family or friends versus the thousands (if not millions) of portraits of random people from the sixties and before that are perfectly fine? (I know there's the whole "historically educational" argument, but come on. Everyone knows what the hippie era looked like. Images of random people wearing bell-bottom jeans taken by the umpteenth barely, if at all, notable photographer are a dime a dozen on the internet). Semi-related, it's completely ridiculous that we can upload whatever essentially worthless images we want to from nobodies on Flickr but then if a new user were to upload the same kind of image as their own work it would be deleted and the user would (possibly) be blocked for uploading "personal images." I don't really see what the difference is except "new users bad, muh!" --Adamant1 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
High quality family portraits would be in scope, as they can have some educational use, but ordinary smartphone ones are not. The distinction seems quite easy to me. Yann (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Me to, but then you didn't say anything about the quailty of the image in the message that I was responding to so.... --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
As Adamant1 points out, we have plenty of photos by non-contributors that are copied from Flickr and other sites. Many of them are entirely unproblematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I am well aware that its a selfie is not really a reason for DR. When you get to the 100th DR for the day I just used per nom - I will try to avoid this in future Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Can I ask for this page to be edited for a few points?
I would request clarification for points that editors need to follow, vs. points that all users, including administrators, need to follow. For instance, the statements that certain deletions require discussions; I would assume those applies to all users, but I may be wrong. Perhaps this clarity wasn't needed before, but a recent discussion has prompted a need for real clarity. As an example, do the steps at COM:Redundant apply to administrators, or are they able to simply delete images they find to be overly redundant?
Would it be beneficial to specifically clarify some topics that are not acceptable as reasons to delete? These could include inaccurate descriptions or filenames (which are easily adjusted) and the idea that a category is "too large". These again came up as points that one user found as the primary reasons to wish images' deletions, and are not valid. This could be a start, and prevent people with issues managing files from simply deleting them outright. See also for instance policies with lists of how not to apply them: Non-criteria (WP:SPEEDY), What harassment is not, What is not original research. ɱ(talk)17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I posted to that discussion. About categories being too large: we do have at least one deletion policy based on that: COM:Nudity#New uploads. At least de facto, we also have a similar policy in regard to portraits: if they are of non-notable individuals, they have to meet a rather high standard of quality and/or have some other interesting aspect (such as striking clothing, being a stock photo of someone doing something in particular, etc.) to be kept. I can't think of other categories in which otherwise in-scope photos that are not of absolutely unusable quality are normally deleted just because the category is numerous, but those existing guidelines point the way to others that could be decided on through discussion and consensus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The nudity policy's paragraph here could be tweaked and applied to clarify COM:Redundant. An image or video of decent quality which does provide additional useful information, e.g. about the background and age of the individual or relevant vital statistics, might indeed be useful. Likewise, a file that is sufficiently different from existing files should generally be kept. A new file of decent quality may mean that a similar poor image or video can be deleted.. ɱ(talk)17:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
For instances like the ones in my recent discussion, relating to buildings, there really is no limit to the usefulness of additional photos. Different photos will have different lighting, resolution, focus, and will be taken at different times of day, seasons, and years, meaning the buildings will show at different ages, with different maintenance levels, and in different changing surroundings. All of these variables have their uses in commonscats and Wikipedia. ɱ(talk)17:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hard disagree there. If you want a comparable sitituation chekout the various "all stamps of the Soviet Union" categories that currently exit. In the categories are multiple images the same stamps where the only difference between a lot of them is essentially a slight tweak in the hue or whatever. While in the meantime it makes the categories essentially unusable and it massively scues any search done for images of stamps toward most of the results being for stamps of the Soviet Union. It's totally unmanagable. There's nothing inherent to the purpose of Commons to give people every possible image of a subject either. If they want an image of a building, stamp, or whatever that is slightly lighter then there's Photoshop. Or at least upload a new version of the original image, but even then it's not really the purpose of the project or at all workable. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about image effects at all. I agree that "slight tweak in the hue" is not permissible. My actual proposal is to clarify as a reason not to delete being: "category is too large". "Too large" is not an issue warranting deletions, though redundant files that bloat a category actually may very well warrant them. (in other words, the category size is a result of the problem, not the root of the problem, and category size in of itself is not problematic to warrant deletions.) ɱ(talk)19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You brought up lighting, resolution, and focus. To me those are effects. Regardless though, I think we should have the best (whatever that means) possible image of a particular subject and then leave it at that. At the end of the day the difference between a 300 dpi or 600 dpi image is negligible. There's nothing you can do with a 300 DPI image that you can't with one that's 600 DPI. Both probably work perfectly fine for Wikipedia and there's zero reason we would need the same image in both resolutions anyway. Otherwise it just leads to people throwing tantrums if someone uploads a better version of an image and nominates theirs for deletion because it's inferior. Like with the stamps, I have a ton of stamps from the Soviet Union that I create much better versions then we currently have from, but the person who uploaded most of the current images thinks multiple images of the same stamp in different resolutions is fine, and will throw a fit if I upload better versions and nominate theirs for deletion. So why would I bother? I'm not going to take the time to create a superior scan of a stamp if it's not going to replace the inferior quality ones though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
"Category is too large" IMO is often a reason for creating subcategories - for example if the category is a notable building, one might create a separate category for the interior, views of the front, views of back, or if there are some significant details, etc. Mediocre or poor quality photos that essentially duplicate views shown in higher quality photos, IMO, (with a few exceptions) are more likely to be a minor problem than something requiring immediate drastic attention, and listing for deletion discussion generally seems preferable to unilateral deletion. (What may seem to me to be just another mediocre photo of a building may have some compensating significance to someone more familiar with the subject, eg "Hey, that's the only photo we have after the old steeple was hit by lightning and before the new one replaced it!") -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Nudity is indeed an unusual case - mostly for cultural reasons - with "penis selfies" being the most frequent problem. That human anatomy and sexuality are within project scope does not seem to me to be an invitation for everyone with a penis to take (generally poorly lit and badly composed) photo of their genitalia, but some other people seem not to understand the distinction - either that, or they just like showing photos of their genitalia and mistakenly think Commons is an appropriate place for that. It's an unfortunate cultural quirk, and we should recognize that - which is why we do not get similarly numerous (usually poor quality) snapshots of people's little toes or accumulations of dust in the corners of rooms. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Adamant1, I'd like you to clarify what you mean by "I think we should have the best (whatever that means) possible image of a particular subject and then leave it at that." I hope you're not suggesting that when we vote at COM:VIC on which image is best in scope that the rest of the images in scope should then be summarily deleted. That would suck! And it is certainly not Commons policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree. I have a hard time thinking of subjects where a single image is inherently more informative than multiple good images. (If there are any such cases, I would think they would be exceedingly rare.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
For the second pair, you linked the same file twice. For the first pair, one photo is brighter and the other doesn't have a person in it, so I would oppose deleting either one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
My bad. I fixed the link. They should be different images now. As to the first two, cool you oppose deleting them. That answer the question of what having both more useful or informative then only have a single image. I don't think just because one image has 2 inches of the back of someone's arm in the foreground means it's any more or less informative then the image that doesn't. Same goes for the difference in lighting. If one of them is to dark to use, then keep the one that isn't. Otherwise, the differences are superficial and uninformative at best. The only extra information we are getting from having both is that the photographer thought the first image wasn't good enough. So they took another one. That's essentially it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Almost identical photos taken same concurrently from the same viewpoint. The statement "the best (whatever that means) possible image of a particular subject" might be construed to mean something like only the best image of a 1950 Oldsmobile 88 "Woody" Wagon - whereas I'd say different examples of the different vehicles of that model, as well as photos of an individual example taken from different angles (front, back, left side, etc), would all be useful. I would have taken multiple photos of that vehicle - but from different angles, showing different sides of the car! Yes, near duplicates taken from essentially identical locations don't seem too useful to me. If I were photographing and took more than one near identical to make sure I got the shot, I would have generally kept the best and deleted the others. But different photographers make different choices. If I don't see the near dupes as particularly useful, neither do I see them as harmful. If one or the other of those two sets were listed for deletion, I'd have no opinion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I think w:WP:SHED is a good reason to not delete either of them. Ultimately, deleting an image doesn't save any space, and no significant harm comes from having both images. Sure, it might have been better to just have one of them to avoid clutter, but choosing which one is better is hard and potentially controversial, so it's just not worth the effort to decide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think it causes harm in a single instance either, but nothing does. The problem is that it just doesn't scale. Especially when there's multiple metrics for what supposedly makes something a unique, separate image from the "original." There's other examples where it's like 5 "duplicate" images of the same automobile from essentially the same perspective. There's got to be a point where it's needlessly excessive to have multiple images of the same object from similar perspectives regardless of it causes harm or not. Not that I'm advocating for having those or any other "duplicate" images deleted. I just think there should be reasonable standards for when they are allowed and when they aren't so it doesn't become an issue in the first place, or at least not more so then it is already. People are already prone to have a tolerance for sorting through a bunch of cruft to find what they are looking for without us adding to it by expecting them to sort through images that are only superficially different at best, if not the same in a lot of cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The problem is the tedious work of deciding which ones are redundant, especially if it needs to be discussed – or checked, if you don't trust the nominator, and often you shouldn't trust them on seeing small but important differences. The short-term solution is to create galleries with the best images. In a longer run we might get tools that find similar images, so that you don't have to look through all of them yourself. –LPfi (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree deciding which ones are redundant is tedious work. Especially considering the high amount of obfuscation that would likely be involved. I don't think the work shouldn't be done just because a small group of people have nothing better to do then make everything on here a super tedious, up-hill battle though. I guess it could be solved through making the "good" ones quality images or something, but that just seems like a temporary workaround to something that needs a more long-term solution then nominating random files to be quality images just so they are easier to organize. Same goes for tools that find similar images. It's a good idea, but doesn't actually solve the issue. Especially considering those tools don't even exist yet and probably never will. No one is clamoring to change how categories work or wants to create a new way to organize files either. Otherwise I'd probably have a different position. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"No encyclopedic use"
I find this kind of close quite annoying. Since when are Commons images judged on the basis of encyclopedic use and not possible educational use on any Wikimedia site? I realize that admins are always way behind in dealing with the crush of deletion requests, but could you all please not be lazy and type "per nomination" when the deletion reason is false? By doing so, you at least partly encourage violations of Commons policy instead of fully discouraging them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Not that I support it, but I can see where someone would say a file has no encyclopedic value when they really mean educational. At the end of the day who cares what specific words the person says just as long as the meaning of both are at least semi-related (which they are at least IMO)? The file is going to be (and was in this case) deleted either way regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Not really – a photo may not have much value for an encyclopedia, but might have immense value for a travel guide, per se. SHB2000 (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that the image is probably going to be deleted or not by the closing administrator regardless of the whatever exact wording people use when they vote. Otherwise you'd have to argue administrators are to inept to know that this isn't an encyclopedia if someone says an image has no encyclopedic and that they are going to just delete an image based on one dumb comment because they are just that stupid or something. If that's your opinion, cool, but then there's really no point in doing this to begin with if that's the case. In the meantime the near constant pedantry over how DRs are dealt with sometimes is just borish and played out at this point and it never leads anywhere anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I wish I could disagree with you, but I'm going to have to agree with you – unfortunately, it seems to be the trail Commons is taking. SHB2000 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
What was the image, and did it have any educational but non-encyclopedic use? i.e. was this a minor terminology glitch, or a deeper question of misinterpreting SCOPE?
Also I would very much agree that this "Delete / Yes" commentary is very unhelpful. It assumes that only admins (who can see the image) have a worthwhile opinion. It also makes future followup (Is the uploader making a habit of the same thing?) difficult. I have no sympathy for admins who claim to be "overworked" when they're also making things like this as exclusionary as possible, and keeping adminship as restricted as Wikipedia's narrow social club model. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Neither I nor anyone else involved in the discussion thought the image was useful, so that's a non-issue. However, I don't think that using language that's accurate and in keeping with Commons guidelines and its position as a repository of images for the entire Wikimedia family of sites (and, to some extent, beyond) is a non-issue or mere "pedantry." Admins need to be mindful of the example they are setting, especially as it was pointed out to them in advance in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The guidelines don't dictate the specific wording have to use when they vote though, just that they need to justify why the image should be kept or deleted. If someone want's to do that by saying the image is non-educational, not useful, worthless, or whatever that's their prerogative. The same goes for if you want to remind the person this isn't an encyclopedia, which you did. The pedantry comes in when it turns into yet another talk page complaint that turns into just one more opportunity of many lately for people to uselessly criticize the administrators like Andy Dingley did in their comment and that seems to be the only reason posts this one exist. Otherwise what's the concreate solution to people wrongly thinking this is Wikipedia? Because I don't see one. Just you accusing "you all" (whomever that is) of being lazy in your first comment. Turning every minor issue into an opportunity to create a public post about how lazy people are that no one is going to read and won't go anywhere is just played out. Seriously, nothing is going to come of this except for useless whining about how administrators suck. It's just getting old at this point and people can say whatever they want in their vote comment anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
In our defence, when you are closing DR's you get to a point where you cannot comment on every DR to fix issues like no encylopedic use should be no educational value or just out of scope and I just tend to use the default "per nomination". Rather than bash the admins you should educate the user's opening the DR - we just don't have the time to fix wording issues like this. Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Does it take too long to type "No educational use"? I don't think it's more the job of non-administrators than administrators to educate users. It's the job of any other user, but it's undercut by admins when their specious deletion arguments are affirmed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Personal deletion
I'd like to delete a photograph I took that was originally uploaded to Wikipedia for personal reasons: File:Michigan State Capitol.jpg
To expand on what Ikan Kekek said, you can list it for a deletion request, but the request is unlikely to succeed. It has been on Commons for more than a dozen years, is in use, and has no evident problem which would need deletion - this would generally have more weight than a photographer request for deletion many years later without evident reason. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I vehemently support your right as a contributor to manage the photographs and other content you contribute. If you have a personal, professional, or other valid reason to manage your content in net-positive or net-negative ways, we should respect your right to do so. Anything else is a unfair restriction of user rights that dissuades people from continuing to contribute here. ɱ(talk)15:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Ɱ - Noted. I strongly support photographers' rights as well. The issue here however is the policy of both Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons that free licenses are not revocable. Despite this, Wikimedia Commons gives photographers a short "courtesy period" (at least a week) for photographers to change their mind and have their work deleted for no other reason. Requesting deletion without reason other than personal change of mind years later is generally not granted if the photo seems unproblematic and useful. User:Criticalthinker asked a question. User:Criticalthinker got answers in accordance with Commons practices and policies. That you disagree with this aspect of Commons practices and policies does not change the answer. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It's only slightly related, but do you at least think an argument could be made that if an image was moved to Commons from Wikipedia using a bot script that the original uploader could argue for it's deletion based on the justification that they didn't upload it here originally to begin with? (I'm aware that the license allows for "sharing" and "remixing" the image, but at least IMO that's kind of a separate issues to if it specifically needs to or should be hosted on Commons and the rights of users to have their images deleted). --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
What would a "better" file be? That seems subjective. I don't want to upload any additional personal photographs is kind of the whole point. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
There are other images of that building already on Commons that can show the subject even more clearly. ɱ(talk)04:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Deletion to allow for export/import from other project
There really ought to be a speedy deletion option for when someone steals your work from another Wikimedia project and uploads it here instead of using Special:Export. If I see no objection, I will add language to allow for this case. —Locke Cole • t • c04:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd hardly call that stealing. If the image is freely licensed why wouldn't they be able to upload it to Commons regardless though? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
They can upload it to Commons. By using Special:Export. They cannot break the attribution as this is a legal requirement of the license used on Wikimedia projects. I'm not debating whether or not it's stealing (it is), I'm debating whether or not there should exist a speedy deletion clause for resolving such instances of stealing so Special:Export can be used. —Locke Cole • t • c15:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment If attribution is removed for CC-by and similar licenses, it is indeed as much "stealing" as any other copyright violation, and should be dealt with accordingly. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't even need to by CC-BY, even PD content that has an attribution history on another project for an identical (as in, down to the bytes) file should maintain the attribution history of the original upload. —Locke Cole • t • c15:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree that for PD content should include proper attribution history as well. Not doing so doesn't amount to "stealing" (violating copyright law), it's just inappropriate and should not be done on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't disagree that it's inappropriate or borderline stealing. Locke Cole didn't really make it clear that's what they were talking about though. I thought they just wanted a speedy deletion option for uploads from Wikipedia in general, not just cases where the license isn't transferred over, which as King of Hearts points out is already covered by exiting speedy deletion criteria. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this is already covered by G6 and F8. Essentially, we use G6 to delete the manual import because it is in the way, and then we proceed to auto-import the original. Now, if we were to hypothetically restore the deleted file at a different title, we would end up with a duplicate, and since the manual import has a newer log, it can be deleted under F8. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd say for me there are two (maybe three) kinds of images that are redundant. 1. Minor crops where you can't tell the image is cropped without having to compare them side by side. 2. Any two images of the same scene, resolutions (or extremely similar resolutions), and where the only differences are at a minor level that isn't viewable by the eye. Like there was a "redundant" image I nominated for deletion a while back where someone argue it should be kept because the shading or something on a small part of it was changed. Even though there was no way to tell just by looking at the image. I'd also add to that images that are totally identical outside being in different file types, but sometimes it's useful to have the same image in multiple formats depending. For instance Jpeg and Tiff file of the same image. So I think dealing with that type of redundancy is a non-starter. Even if it still leads to most of the same problems you've mentioned. If you want a good example of that though, checkout this file and this one. One of them will never be deleted as "redundant" even if it is because someone (probably the user who uploaded both of them) will just cry foul about how we are allowed to upload the same image in different file formats. Even if there's literally zero difference between the two. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment "I don't honestly care how many articles an image is being used in if I remove it from Commons" sounds to me rather like a statement of not caring about the mission of Commons and the Wikimedia projects as a whole - I'm rather puzzled why someone with such an attitude would be making contributions here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}