Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Proposal: Blatant copyright violations outside of filespace[edit]

I think there should be a speedy deletion criterion for blatant copyright violations outside of filespace (i.e. text copyvios), for although they do not happen often, they can be just as serious as file copyvios, and deletion is likely to be uncontroversial in such cases.
Perhaps clarify that speedy deletion criterion F1 (for copyright violations in filespace) should be used only for "unambiguous" cases, i.e. where a file is an obvious copyright violation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it would be more sensible to separate text copyvio (say, G11) from more ubiquitous F1–F6 (file copyvio). Imagine: someone uploaded a new free file, but stuffed {{Information}} with copy-and-paste from a copyrighted document. Then the copyrighted stuff on the namespace-6 page can be blanked and revision deleted under G11, but the file may remain intact. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification for G7 (deletion requested by uploader)[edit]

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7:

Old and proposed text:

Yes, this clarification appears to be needed to stop random editors from being able to sabotage G7 requests. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Support - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Looks like there is more to it than I thought. My vote is nuetral for now. Masum Reza^📞 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Overly bureaucratic for what affects only a very low number of files. A regular DR is always the safer option anyway. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Support, makes sense as an anti-sabotage measure. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification for G7: discussion[edit]

Why this proposal feels so dramatic to me for some reason? And why it is here of all places? Amendment requests should be proposed on relevant talk pages which in this case is Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Masum Reza^📞 23:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: It's a policy page, and the change is more than fixing a spelling error. But I suppose the request could be here as well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this really helps with sabotage. Wouldn't users just make sure to go around and remove usages right before they make the request instead of after? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of extra legwork that you are putting on reviewing admins. Not necessarily saying that is a bad thing but you are saying that admins now have to look at every single use and determine when the image was put on that page, not necessarily an easy task if it is a more edited article. If something is reasonably in use I'm of the mind that G7 never applies. Period. Doesn't matter if it is within the seven days or not. Provided the copyright is fine it was released under an irrevocable license. I'm all for common courtesy and deleting things that people reasonably ask to be deleted but if it is properly in use on an article deleting it is a detriment to the projects and to those we serve. --Majora (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: Well not quite but kinda yes maybe but not like that. G7 shouldn't be refused because someone added the file to an article after the request. I don't mind if the onus is on the uploader or any other user to prove that. But if someone points out the file was added to an article after the request, G7 shouldn't be refused, like Christian Ferrer and Taivo did. (I pinged Taivo after that comment, he still didn't honor the G7)

The wording could be changed to "content that is unused or proven to have been unused at the moment the request is made", would that help? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we have opposing views on this matter. I follow more closely with the ideas stated in COM:NOTUSED. If something is reasonably in use (keyword there) then we should air far more on the side of keeping the image. Imagine if the image is of something rare, something we don't have any other illustrative material for. You would still deprive our users of that image simply because someone changed their mind? That is an extreme example, sure, but the idea that we should delete something, or not, just because of the timing of when it was placed in an article seems a little extreme as well. Admins were given the mop because of the community's trust that they will make good judgement calls. Forcing the deleting of something that is legitimately in use simply because of an arbitrary time frame stated in G7 is, again, a detriment to those we serve. --Majora (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. Pictures of rare things should not be deleted just because the uploader requests deletion. A DR would be a better choice. But if the image in question is of low resolution, blurry or better images are available, G7 request should be honored in my opinion. Masum Reza^📞 01:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad quality photos would not be able to be reasonably used. Again, the keyword here is if the image is reasonably in use on a project. That word allows for admin discretion which is the whole point of having human admins. If we want to talk about changing the wording of G7 we should change it to allow for more admin discretion (codify the word "reasonable" into the wording). --Majora (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: I don't know if our views differ all that much. Yes, of course it is always a shame to lose a valuable image. But the issue is more complicated than that. Imagine we refuse to delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:SharafkhanehPort00007.jpg because that swwiki editor added it to an article, knowing full well it could be deleted shortly. Awesome, we get to keep an image that's certainly useful and in scope! But.. I don't think we should expect any more contributions from this photographer ever again, if we punish mistakes like that. And also.. we'd be hosting an image that quite possibly isn't actually free. Clicking "continue" in UploadWizard is hardly a binding contract in many countries. If someone actively tries to get their uploaded file(s) deleted shortly after upload, the license is probably not enforceable. A re-user who grabbed that file in good faith and never looked back before the uploader tried to get it deleted wouldn't be liable, but also likely wouldn't be allowed to continue distributing the file with that free license once they are notified.

Hewhoreleaseshisworkunderafreelicensesayswhat? - What? - GOTCHA! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, Clindberg, Majora: Should we add the following text to G7? (make it more like en-wiki criteria) If the sole author blanks a newly created page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. While patrolling new pages, I've seen some pages that had been blanked by it's author but couldn't find the correct criteria. Masum Reza^📞 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
For example, K-177_(Kansas_highway). The only contributor blanked it's page. I tried to tag it per G1 (I thought it was a accidental creation), but Tulsi Bhagat deleted it per GA1. That criteria was applicable but I wanted a more specific criteria. Masum Reza^📞 07:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to special case every little thing. Administrators are able to think for themselves. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with this sentiment. I'm thinking this is more and more looking like an enwiki idea en:WP:CREEP. Where we just keep adding rules little by little until we are smothered by them. Admins were made admins because they are trustworthy enough to made decisions. If there are problems with this then we should be discussing individual cases. Not wholesale adding new rules like this. --Majora (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

G1 seems okay for that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Extending eligibility time for G7 vote[edit]

Can the community vote on extending eligibility of G7 to 2 weeks. The reason for my request proposal is so recent uploaded files that the users don't want anymore have more time to be eligible for G7. Please come join this discussion. --VKras (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: You can still request non-speedy deletion after 7 days. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Alexis Jazz Files uploaded more than 7 days ago take much longer to be deleted. --VKras (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: Could you clarify some things for me? What do you mean by Files uploaded more than 7 days ago take much longer to be deleted.? Masum Reza^📞 22:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Masumrezarock100 Basically, files uploaded more than 7 days ago need regular DR to be deleted. --VKras (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages and G8[edit]

G8 doesn't currently have an exception for user talk pages of users who have non-existent user pages. I think that should be added. Like "The criterion only applies to content within Wikimedia, and does not apply to external content (i.e. deleted source) ~~and~~ or user talk pages." pandakekok9 10:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk pages don't depend on the user page content, so I don't think they are within G8 currently, but wouldn't hurt to be explicit. (Should it be or user talk pages ?). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be "or". You're right though that user talk pages don't depend on the user page, so I won't mind if this change doesn't pass because it's unnecessary. Wherever this proposal goes, at least it would be clear that user talk pages are exempted from G8. pandakekok9 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge CSD GA2 into CSD G1[edit]

Hello!

I see no difference between these criteria. I propose a merger into CSD G1. Any questions?Jonteemil (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Support for the sake of simplicity, pending further discussion. I also propose the older criteria (currently GA4 and C1) be removed and replaced, as they weren't used recently. Yes older link would be broken, but I think that is a sacrifice we'd have to make to keep the current list neat and concise. If necessary, we could add a separate sentence describing what the criteria was previously. MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown would also need to be updated. Thoughts welcome. Reh man 01:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per Rehman. --pandakekok9 02:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: Since no one seems to protest I guess this proposal has been successful. Can you edit the page? It seems a bit to techy for me to dare.Jonteemil (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil, sure. Let's keep this open over the weekend, in case anyone has any last-minute feedback. I will get to it by next week. Being the CSD for Commons, I'd like to take this slow. Cheers, Reh man 10:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good.Jonteemil (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ping @Rehman:.Jonteemil (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil, changes done. Cheers, Reh man 07:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Perfect.Jonteemil (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tacsipacsi. Re this revert, the renumbering was done per consensus above. Would you mind reverting the revert, and discussing our way back if necessary? Reh man 05:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted your revert, per above, considering consensus was reached. Please feel free to start a new discussion, if you'd still like to keep the old references. Thank you. Reh man 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: {{SD}} doesn't work now because of the removing of criteria. Can you please update it?Jonteemil (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil, thanks for the ping. Can you tell me what exactly doesn't work? I'll look into it. Cheers, Reh man 04:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: Well, the template is built with the pre-updated version of COM:CSD in mind so {{SD|C2}} is still coded as {{Bad name}} in the template, when it should be "empty category".Jonteemil (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil. Ah right. It's fixed now. Can you check? Reh man 04:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: It still doesn’t work unfortunately. See Category:ICA Maxi Birsta.Jonteemil (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I added {{SD|F6}} to show how it should look like.Jonteemil (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonteemil. I made a typo there. It is now fixed. Reh man 05:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: Perfect, thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Rearranging deletereason dropdown[edit]

Hello. I'd like to propose a change to the deletereason dropdown. Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Rearranging deletereason dropdown. Thank you. Reh man 11:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Does speedy deletion for misspelling in redirect is ok for deletion ?[edit]

Hello,

Following this discussion, does speedy deletion for misspelling in redirect is ok for deletion ?

Thanks beforehand, Bretwa (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

SVGs that just contain an embedded raster image[edit]

It's fairly common that people will see {{Convert to SVG}} on a raster image, will completely misunderstand the point of SVG, and will upload an SVG file that just embeds the original raster image, rather than actually creating a vector version. I think we should either explicitly expand the F8 criterion to cover these files, or add a new criterion for them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)