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)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
39 copyvios • 22 duplicates • 1 advert • 7 selfies • 23 others
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:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg
This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from
File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.
A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:StudentLoansCompany.png

It's a logo for a UK government agency, so I don't think it should be a problem to use it.--Aŭstriano (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Logos aren't covered by OGL and logo is more recent than 1974 and appears to be above threshold of originality in the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Peso Ley Banknotes

Both files deleted in 2011 by this deletion request. ARL 1000 banknotes were released in 1973 (see: https://www.bcra.gob.ar/MediosPago/Emisiones_anteriores.asp#pesoL) and are now in PD and can be tagged with {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose They became PD in Argentina in 2023, long after the URAA date, so they will have a USA copyright until 1/1/2067. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As these files were uploaded in 2011, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can be added. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The duration of copyright in Argentina is 70 years PM, not 50 years after publication. Thuresson (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Not for "anonymous works belonging to an institution, corporation or legal entity, registered in Argentina" which is 50 years. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know" is not the same as "anonymous". Only a very qualified craftsman will be hired to engrave stamps and bank notes. There is no reason to believe that this master engraver is anonymous and I presume that it would easy to find the names of those who engraved stamps and bank notes of Argentina in the last 100 years. Thuresson (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is moot. Fifty or seventy doesn't matter because in either case the works became PD after the URAA date, so, as I said above, they have a USA copyright until 1/1/2067. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Χουρδάκης στη ΔΕΘ.jpg

i own the copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCh-321 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I can't find a copy of this one on the Internet, but seeing the user's history, a confirmation of the permission via COM:VRT is needed. @Didym: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minha Criança Trans.png and File:Thamirys Nunes com bandeira Minha Criança Trans.jpg

Files deleted in a monocratic decision. The files were obviously free. I request that a deletion request be opened instead. Skyshifter (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that the user is clearly biased regarding these files, as he has opened a deletion request for Thamirys Nunes in pt.wiki and has been adding transphobic content to the Minha Criança Trans article. These files should've never been deleted monocratically by such user. Skyshifter (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeleting File:Minha Criança Trans.png only, considering that it was deleted by DarwIn, who is currently in conflict with the uploader on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. The logo in question is in the public domain as per PD-textlogo, or its unilateral deletion is, at the very least, controversial, which makes the opening of a deletion request necessary. File:Thamirys Nunes com bandeira Minha Criança Trans.jpg should not be undeleted though, as it features very prominently a copyrighted artwork. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't believe this is PD-textlogo, though it would be if the figure in a heart were cropped out. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil does have a high ToO so it could be PD in Brazil. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow No way that logo is PD in Brazil. Brazil has an high threshold indeed, but that's not the same as anything goes. Darwin Ahoy! 00:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to your expertise here regarding Brazilian copyright law. Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol Kobrzycki w 1927.jpg

Witam, zdjęcie pochodzi z mojego archiwum domowego ma ok. 100 lat, nie jest objęte żadnymi prawami autorskimi. Nie jest znany autor tego zdjęcia. Oczywiście zrobiłem kopię tego zdjęcia. Nie mam doświadczenia i nie jest moją intencją łamać jakiekolwiek prawa autorskie. Pozdrawiam.--Historiapomojemu (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support PD-Poland should apply. Yann (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:JAZMIN YANELI VILLANUEVA MOO.jpg

A quien corresponda, Por medio de la presente hago constar que el archivo jpg esta en previa edición y todos los derechos de autor me corresponde. Sin embargo es mi primera vez editando, solicito de la manera mas amable y atenta no borrar el archivo porque si me gustaría conservarlo. Poco a poco le iré afinando los detalles. Por su atención, gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CindyVillanueva17 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from Facebook. Please upload the original picture with EXIF data, or send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centenary University Seal.jpg

This image is the seal of Centenary University. I created this file because Wikimedia Commons does not have the seal of this University in its database as do the colleges and universities. I believe the reason the file was deleted was because it perhaps lacked proper licensing. I mostly wanted to include this file on Centenary University's Wikipedia page because most other Wikipedia pages for colleges include their official seal. Clearly I did not include the proper licensing, etc. I am only an amateur editor interested in editing small pages that are important to me. Is there a way to have this file undeleted or reuploaded properly? Thanks! Leahcim098 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want is for it to be used in an article, you can upload it as a non-free file to English Wikipedia. For it to be hosted here it has to be public domain or given a free license by Centenary University. How old is this logo? Abzeronow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The seal has the date 1867 on it. If it was used before 1930 (as of Wednesday), it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

Hola, necesito que restablezcan estos archivos que fueron borrados arbitrariamente ya que según la legislación peruana, los himnos de ciudades o departamentos son de uso educativos, prácticos e enciclopédicos.

(Santyie17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santyie17 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Santyie17: Where does the Creative Commons license come from? How old are these orchestral works? Thuresson (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No es por antiguedad estimado, no hay leyes peruanas de que los himnos tengan copyright, aquellos himnos a los Departamentos, Ciudades o Distritos son de dominio público y por lo tanto cualquiera lo puede subir a diferentes plataformas, es más ni el propio Himno Nacional del Perú tiene copyright, es de libre uso y cualquiera puede poner en un video, escuela o para fines académicos como este medio, gracias por leer este minúsculo fragmento de texto. Santyie17 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I see nothing in Peruvian law that suggests that anthems do not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Por eso, no existe legislación alguna que lo digan que tengan o no, es un vacío legal y tranquilamente se puede utilizar. Santyie17 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Myungjik.jpg

This file is transferred from Korean Wikipedia, and Samswlee uploaded his own work under free license. He is the owner of photo and also a descendant of the person in the photo. (talk)

Despite all of this, the person in the photo was born in 1865 and died in 1915, so {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-photo}} would be applied. Original link is now dead; archive available.--Namoroka (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

All images that have been uploaded are fully owned by the user Kevin P. Donaldson. This has happened several times that the image owned by the user have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealKevinDonaldson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1735469345867.jpg

There has been deletion for the image many times.There is no copyright for the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remjeud (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"