Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Mojang Studios Logo.svg

Hi, This should be OK with {{PD-textlogo}}. See also File:Mojang Studios.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mojang logos. Yann (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In US - obviously. But in Sweden? Pinging @Josve05a, Natuur12, and Fitindia: - users who participated in DR. Any comments? Ankry (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No strong opinion in favor of undeleting or keeping the files deleted. A file such as File:Mojang Logo.png would be above the threshold of originality in various jurisdictions such as the UK and the Netherlands, but I'm not familiar enough with Swedish copyright law to state wherever this is or isn't the case in Sweden. Jeg stoler på dig Josve. Natuur12 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, this is much simpler than the examples given on COM:Sweden, especially File:A6 logo.png. Yann (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I converted the deletion of the file form a speedy tag to a "deletion discussion", given that I myself was unsure of the TOO status when I was patrolling the speedy category for clear copyvios. However, if I would have to give an opinion of this now, I'm leaning 50/50 on this, given the A6 logo mentioned above, however Swedish courts have historically acknowledged that even modest design choices can qualify for copyright protection, as long as they demonstrate a certain level of creative input. In the case of the Mojang logo, the deliberate arrangement and configuration of the notches (and clear distortion of the letters) appear to meet this criterion, thereby placing it above the threshold of originality as outlined by Swedish copyright law. The case of the "A6" logo, as described in the example, illustrates the determination that the specific design in question did not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. The decision was based on the logo's simplicity and lack of distinctive character, including the ordinary font and basic design elements that did not exhibit significant creative effort. Comparatively, the Mojang logo features specific design elements, namely the notches cut out from the letters, which are not typically found in standard fonts. This unique characteristic of the logo represents a deliberate creative decision, indicating a level of originality that surpasses the simplistic and common features of the "A6" logo. Additionally, the incorporation of distinctive design elements such as the notches contributes to the overall identity and branding of Mojang, serving as a recognizable and distinguishing feature of the company's visual representation (but that's touching more on Trademark than copyright, but still counts for something when it comes to "verkshöjd"). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you say that it would be wise to apply the COM:PCP in this case and keep the file deleted? Further, should this lead to the deletion of File:Mojang Studios.jpg (the same image, but JPEG) under both PCP and COM:G4? IceWelder [✉] 12:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both files should be treated the same. I am however very unsure personally on advocating for either deletion or undeletion in this case. However, PCP is a core policy which should always take precedence in case we can't reach a clear determination to keep a file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I would again advocate for the file's deletion, as I did with my original G4 tagging that led to this discussion in the first place. Thank you for your insight. IceWelder [✉] 15:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Natuur12: "Stoler" is Norwegian, you Austrian fool. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SharonFairPhD

The images of the scientific author were deleted as "out of scope" despite one being in-use. We encourage authors to submit images. The author has a valid Wikidata page with an VIAF, ResearchGate, and LCCN entry. The images of book covers and flags can remain deleted. See Sharon Fair. --RAN (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):

  1. Do you want to reopen the DR providing new arguments? Or do you mean something else? We are not here to override community decisions.
  2. Why low resolution image File:Dr. Sharon Fair 2023.03.14 WDI-USA Demonstration.png (Dr. Sharon Fair speaking at WDI-USA's International Women's Day demonstration in St. Augustine, Florida on March 12, 2023) is in scope? The abovementioned Wikidata item in my opinion does not meet Wikidata notability criteria (if I am wrong, please, explain why it does). Moreover, the photo is likely a copyvio as Sharon Fair cannot be here both: the speaker and the photographer. It is not a selfie.

Ankry (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Huh? One vote to keep one to delete is not consensus to delete. Deletion based on "out of scope" is flawed, you cannot be out-of-scope and in-use simultaneously, this isn't an image of Schrodinger's cat. "Likely a copyvio" was not the rationale for deletion. --RAN (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): , which images do you believe should be restored. You have agreed that the books and flags should not be. The two images of Sharon Fair that I have seen claim that she is the photographer when it is completely obvious that they cannot be selfies. Also please remember that DRs are not votes and while the closing Admin must consider opposing arguments, it is ultimately up to them. Finally, note that there were two experienced users who believed the images should be deleted -- the nom, and the closing Admin, so even if it were a vote, you would be on the losing side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 October 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Nothing is "completely obvious" cameras have timers, I routinely take images of myself using the timer. Again let me repeat: "Deletion based on 'out of scope' is flawed, you cannot be out-of-scope and in-use at Wikidata simultaneously". We encourage scientists and authors to submit images of themselves. --RAN (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore these:

I am not yet seeing a consensus to undelete. None of the demostration photos are selfies, and I have doubts that a few others you are requesting are selfies. Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose File:Sharon Fair 1967.08 with brother Michael and sister Sheila at home in Havre de Grace, MD.jpg is obviously not a selfie so there is reasonable cause to believe that this user uploads other people's photos and claim them as her own. Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose We have a person who claims a variety of degrees earned in three years, who has falsely claimed {{Own}} for at least one image and almost certainly on all the images above. She claims having written several books which can't be found at Amazon or elsewhere. The Wikidata entry was done by RAN, so it is not relevant to his request. Therefore, the subject images are almost certainly copyright violations and are out of scope personal images of a non-contributor who is not notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.

However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽，如其形式係依法所制訂者，依著作權法第9條，不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is based on 《陸海空軍軍旗條例施行細則》第五條. Looks ok to keep. --Wcam (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Should recover revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tsumyoki

I don't agree on the closing admin's decision. I find it hasty and without properly scrutinizing the deletion process. Like they did here on [File:Jason Fernandes Entrepreneur (cropped).jpg]. If I can get a much appropriate and helpful reply, it'll be appreciated. I just want to know on what proper grounds were these files deleted? Rejoy2003(talk) 12:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose As noted in the DR, when an image has been published elsewhere, policy requires that the uploader prove its copyright status using VRT or otherwise. I also find your inability to remember why you did not use your particular camera hard to believe. I also see a number of images claimed to be {{Own}} which have been deleted as copyvios. While we are prepared to Assume Good Faith, that goes away rapidly with such things. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know, the source mentioned of the Rolling stone, has a cropped version of my image. Whereas I had the full version, who do you think is more likely to have a copyvio issue here now? Rejoy2003(talk) 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo IP New Redraw.svg

I want to point out that the file was deleted unnecessarily and without approval by other users, obviously to my disgrace, considering that there is the previous, more complex IP logo File:IP_logo_2018.png and no one says anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giov.c (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 October 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment This is the logo from [1]. Yann (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in fact the logo is the update from 2018 when they acquired Totalerg, the previous, more complex one is mentioned above (and it is not even from 2018 but rather from 2008) Giov.c (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I suspect that this is over the ToO in both Italy and the USA, The fact that another version exists is irrelevant to that question. However, more to the point, I see no reason to keep an image that is 64 pixels square when we have a much larger version available. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they were 64 pixels but in SVG. In fact, I recreated it myself later Giov.c (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot, in Italy it's too easy to be protected, I remember TOO-Italy Giov.c (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seal of CPC Corporation, Taiwan

Please restore the following pages:

Related discussion: 1, 2. The seal of CPC was adopted in 1946, so it should had been in the Public Domain per {{PD-China}}. Since that the current wording of the logo was adopted in 2007 (still copyrighted), and I don't know which of the files were without words, so please just restore those files with the seal only. (or maybe cropped the file first if none were without one?) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 09:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Although {{PD-China}} could be used for Taiwan, {{PD-Taiwan}} is a better choice. The rule there is 50 years after public release for works authored by a legal entity. The Taiwan URAA date is 2002, so these do not have a URAA copyright. Except for the logo itself, which you say is from 1946, I do not see enough words to have a copyright, so these are free of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Oleksandr Kamyshin.jpg

This file has been removed due to copyright infringement. But in fact, this photo belongs to the Minister of Strategic Industries Oleksandr Kamyshyn and is posted on his official website (I am adding a link: https://mspu.gov.ua/en/persons/oleksandr-kamyshin ). I work in the press service of this Ministry, and we were the customers of the photo shoot where this photo was taken. Therefore, I ask you to restore this photo on the Wikipedia pages in all languages. Thank you for your understanding. 01.11.2023 Krizhinka (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment This was claimed as {{Own}} rather than a work of a Ministry of Ukraine. Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The source link above comes up as a blank page. The image appears without a free license at https://ubn.news/arms-should-become-ukraines-main-export-product/. In view of the fact that you falsely claimed that you were the actual photographer when you uploaded the image, it is difficult to believe you now. In order for the image to be restored, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) you must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement giving you the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diego Png by Lumper500 is marked with CC0 1.0

Diego Png by Lumper500 is marked with CC0 1.0

<a property="dct:title" rel="cc:attributionURL" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ABuTj2iKEJ1aarBxdNFGHqeiDZVd6lSv/view?usp=drive_link">Diego Png</a> by <a rel="cc:attributionURL dct:creator" property="cc:attributionName" href="https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario:Lumper500&action=edit&redlink=1">Lumper500</a> is marked with <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0?ref=chooser-v1" target="_blank" rel="license noopener noreferrer" style="display:inline-block;">CC0 1.0<img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1"><img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/zero.svg?ref=chooser-v1"></a>

Diego Png by Lumper500 is marked with CC0 1.0. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 Es mi obra--Lumper500 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Strong oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diego peneG.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Te cojo mucho miguel angel.png. We didn't delete the user's content because of licensing issues, but due to its content. Even the titles can be considered vandalism. Commons is not a place to host images with racists insults. Günther Frager (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Пять ночей у Фредди (фильм)2.jpg

Одной из причин запроса на восстановление изображения постера фильма "Пять ночей у Фредди" из Википедии является ошибка в старом переведенном постере. Ошибка заключается в том, что буква "С" стоит вместо буквы "У" в названии фильма. Это может быть причиной недоразумений и неправильного идентифицирования фильма, особенно для тех, кто не знаком с оригинальным английским названием. Восстановление изображения постера с исправленной ошибкой поможет предоставить точную информацию о фильме и избежать путаницы. --Yuda 131 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The poster is copyrighted regardless and there's no fair use on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=755577566"