Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UR)
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

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:Emblem of Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Items were not exact duplicates per reason given for deletion and redirect. Images were being worked on as replacements for main emblem files per a request at enwiki's Illustration workshop, and protected edit requests were made on the emblem pages asking that the deleted files be uploaded as new versions of the main files. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I think I understand. Each pair of files are very similar but not identical. File:Emblem of North Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg (before deletion and redirect) File:Emblem of North Vietnam.svg. and File:Emblem of Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg (before deletion and redirect) File:Emblem of Vietnam.svg

User:HapHaxion, am I correct that you want to end up with the first of these replacing the second of these? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Correct. The "fixed for revision version" was requested to be uploaded as a new version of their respective files per the talk page and the request on the Illustration workshop. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please just answer my question -- am I correct? There is no upload involved here so your answer does not make sense. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My answer to your question is that you are correct. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I Symbol support vote.svg Support the requested change. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, no need to recover the File:Emblem of North Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg as the author has already uploaded the new version straight into the File:Emblem of North Vietnam.svg. However, I do expect the "as soon as possible" undeletion and any possible actions with File:Emblem of Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg. Thank you Hwi.padam (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg and others

This is a mess and I'm not sure where to go to start this process, but last year, someone did an improper cut-and-paste move on these files by downloading them and re-uploading them under new names as their "own work," after which the original files, their history, and the correct attributions were deleted as duplicates. Redirects currently exist at these locations.

--Ibagli (Talk) 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support That has happened to me a couple of times (one of which I caught before deletion and fixed). Restore the original uploads/credits. Possibly rename, or just make the newer names a redirect to the original one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
user:Ibagli There's a problem here which I cannot solve -- presumably this needs a "C" in the center, replacing the "E" on Elizabeth's flag. The deletion as a duplicate was, of course, wrong, as the current version of the flag belongs to Charles, not his mother and the two are not duplicates.
I have restored only New Zealand -- is what I did there what you want? If so, I will continue with the other four. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they all need to be undeleted, and then they'll have to be renamed/merged (not sure which would be more appropriate) to the locations where they had been redirecting (there's nothing wrong with the new file names, they were just reuploaded with no history and incorrect attribution).--Ibagli (Talk) 09:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure one of us understands. As I see it, there are two royal standards involved, that for Elizabeth and a new one for Charles, which we don't have. All we have for Charles is the version with the blank center. So there's no rename or merge involved, just taking the history back to just before the redirect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no current royal standard for any of these countries (Canada might be announcing theirs in a week), as they were personal flags for Elizabeth II, who is dead. The "blank center" version is fictitious/speculative and was changed by one user who jumped the gun on deleting E and EIIR cyphers from everything immediately after Elizabeth II died. These speculative, unsourced changes were largely reverted by various users, but this resulted in the the existence of identical duplicate files and and the improper deletion of the older files rather than the newly-uploaded ones. I don't know what the best course of action to remedy this is, but I think it would be one of:
  • Undelete all of these files, delete the newly-uploaded ones, and move/merge these files to the 19XX-2022 names, leaving redirects that can be replaced with the Charles III flags when/if they are announced.
  • Undelete all of these files, leave them at the unchanged names with the E in the center and not the fictitious blank circle until/unless new flags are announced, and simply delete the newly-uploaded ones as newer identical duplicates.
In any case, whatever way it's achieved, the blank center versions shouldn't be on here at all at least until we get an indication that the new reign's flags will follow the old pattern, and the old history should be restored.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume the files should be at names where the years are specified, and the names without specification should be redirects. I assume they should point to the "E" versions until we have the new versions, not to break uses where using the old one is unproblematic. The history post 8 Sep should probably be moved to the "C" version just before uploading the new version, to keep the file history. –LPfi (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:050221.ポケモンジェット1999.JA8288.767-300.jpg

Other images of Category:Pokémon Jet were undeleted, but this one was forgotten. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Pokémon_Jet for the looong list of DRs concerning this case. Yann (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why we are keeping these images. Given their looks and even the category name, it is obvious that the Pokemon characters cannot possible be called de minimis. The only possibility I can see is if any were photographed in an FoP country -- there is German case law that FoP applies to art on a cruise ship. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the photos focusing on Pokemon, or are they pictures of the entire plane? If the latter case, they could be incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl, take a look at Category:Pokémon Jet. Yes, they are the entire plane, but the entire plane is covered with Pokemon material. If it were just on the tail, or nose, I could understand an argument that it was incidental, but given these circumstances, I find that difficult. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is somewhat similar case law (as the German one) for Japan, so Japanese FoP may apply here (assuming the photo was taken in Japan). But Japanese FoP for artistic works (not for buildings) excludes commercial use and is therefore not suitable for Commons. I also don't see how the characters could be de minimis here by either US or Japanese standards (the characters are not minor components of the photo). --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: We need to be consistent in our decisions. After numerous DRs, it was decided that these pictures are acceptable for Commons. See the link I gave above. Yann (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not oppose (re-)nominating those files for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: So please do so. Or even better, create a vote on VPC or a RFC. Yann (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Irudiz eta euskaraz.jpeg

Dear reviewrs, I would like to ask you to undelete this image as images published by Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea (UEU, Basque Summer University) have licence CC-BY-SA 3.0

Please, see https://www.ueu.eus/ohar-legala, The 2nd point in Section "Jabetza intelektual eta industriala" is the following textː "Creative Commons Aitortu-PartekatuBerdin 3.0". That is the equivalent in Basque for CC-BY-SA 3.0.

The sentence "Bestalde, Web gunetik deskargatu daitezkeen doako edukiak, testuak, artxiboak eta abar Creative Commons Aitortu-PartekatuBerdin 3.0 lizentziapean daude." translated into English is the followingː "On the other hand, free content, texts, archives, etc. that can be downloaded from the website are licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 licence."

This image is a bookcover published in the webpage of the book. That bookcover can be freely downloaded from that page, so, taking into account what have been explained in the previous paragraph, it has licence CC-BY-SA 3.0.

That licence has been used to upload more than 20 bookcovers of this publisher, you can see them here.

Please let me know if you want me to ask UEU to send you an email confirming all that.

I hope you can undelete this image, please. Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The full legal section from which you quote above reads [Google Translation]:

Intellectual and industrial property
1.- The intellectual property rights, graphic design and codes of the web pages belong to the Basque University of Summer. Therefore, it is forbidden to copy, distribute, publicly display, transform or do anything that can be done with the content of the web pages, even if the sources are mentioned, without the written permission of the Basque University of Summer. All commercial names, brands or signs of any kind on the company's web pages belong to their owners and are protected by law.
2.- On the other hand, the free content, texts, archives, etc. that can be downloaded from the web site are under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. With this license, you will be able to copy, distribute and show derivative works of the content, subject to the following conditions: - You must mention the original author of the content. - If you make any changes to the content, or create a derivative work, in order to sell or distribute it, you will have to do so under the same conditions as this license.
3.- In the case of texts with the copyright symbol, all rights belong to the authors.
4.- Finally, the users of Uda He has the permission of the Basque University to view, print, copy and store protected intellectual creations, content and assets (with or without exclusive rights) on a hard disk or other medium, provided that the purpose is personal and private, with no intention of distribution or marketing; however, said rights and content cannot be modified or decompiled. This personal use is fair if the copyrights and industrial property rights mentioned here are respected; in this respect, the user receives no license.

You assert that paragraph 2 applies here. That's not clear. The book has a copyright, so it is not "free content". The book cover is not "texts, archives, etc.". I think paragraph 1 probably applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, @Jameslwoodward, for your answer. So, if Basque Summer University modified paragraph 2 by adding "bookcovers", then it would be clear. I can propose them to replace the first sentence with the following one ː "On the other hand, the free content, texts, archives, BOOKCOVERS, etc. that can be downloaded from the web site are under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license." Would it be enough? Else, please, could you send me an alternative sentence? Thank you very much. ̴̴̴̴ Ksarasola (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ksarasola: Bookcovers have a copyright unless being very simple. So the University can't just add a CC-BY-SA notice as they are not the copyright owners. Only the publisher can do that. Yann (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yannː In this book the publisher is the same Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea (UEU, Basque Summer University). You can confirm it hereː [1]https://www.ueu.eus/argitaletxea/liburuak/irudiz-eta-euskaraz-gure-hizkuntzaren-zinema-gure-zinemaren-hizkuntza , where "Argitaletxea/ Liburuak" means "Publisher / books", It is a book published by UEU, UEU is the copyright owner. ̴̴̴̴ Ksarasola (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with @Ksarasola here. For me, the bookcover is as a free content downloadable from the web, so the point n.2 applies to it. If the sentence is modified it would be even clearer, of course. And since the publisher, and therefore the copyright owner is the UEU, the change would apply to it. Supro23 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ksarasola: In this case, yes, a mention from the UEU that the book covers are published under a free license would be OK for Commons. Yann (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have a confirmation about that in their website. They are the publisher AND the university. Theklan (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support The legal advice is clear to me and I should think the automatic translator got it right, also in the legal advice of each web page related to a book in particular as added above by Ksarasola. Books or contents that do not show explicitly a copyright (point 3) enjoy a CC-BY-SA 3.0 free-license (point 2). I think it is clear from the phrase "doako edukiak, testuak, artxiboak eta abar", but adding also "bookcovers" may shed further light to administrators who check this and other files. As far as I know, the university UEU is the publisher of the books they feature in their website. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rajmund Dybczynski.jpg

- its is our own family picture that was also shared for other articles outside of wikipedia -Thario (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Are you, Thario, the actual photographer? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, I can upload the original photo file, but I guess the cut portrait version is better suited for its purpose here Thario (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thario: We should have both on Commons, the original and the cropped versions. Yann (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MN Fashion Logo.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring your attention to a matter regarding the logo file on a Wikipedia page. I kindly request that you refrain from deleting the MN Fashions Logo file associated with the page.

The logo holds significant value and relevance to the page's content, contributing to the overall authenticity and representation of the subject. Its presence aids in providing a comprehensive understanding of the topic for Wikipedia readers. Removing the logo file would result in a diminished user experience and potentially incomplete information.

I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines and policies to maintain the integrity and accuracy of its content. However, in this particular case, the logo file is crucial in conveying visual information and enhancing the article's credibility. It aligns with the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide reliable and comprehensive knowledge to its readers.

I kindly request your consideration in preserving the logo file on the page. If there are any concerns or issues regarding the usage of the logo, I am open to discussing and addressing them in a collaborative manner. I firmly believe that retaining the logo file will greatly benefit the readers and contribute positively to the article.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your ongoing efforts in maintaining the quality and reliability of Wikipedia's content. Please feel free to reach out to me if you require any further information or if I can be of assistance in any way.

With sincere regards, --Abhi2781 (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:MN Fashion Logo.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The problem is that we have no right to make the logo available to the public. To host your logo we need a licence, and according to our policy that must be a free licence, such as {{Cc-by-sa 4.0}} (our default for uploaders' own works). If you wish us to host the logo, somebody authorised to make such decisions must license the logo in a suitable way and either indicate that at an appropriate web page or email VRT to confirm the decision. Some Wikipedias also allow fair use of non-licensed media, if certain conditions are met (for the rules on Wikipedia in English, see en:WP:EDP). In such use, Wikimedia Commons is not involved. –LPfi (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Die Astronomen, 1952.jpg etc.

resp. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Friedrich Dürrenmatt please check Ticket:2023040310011137 for permission. Thanks. --Elya (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elya: Could you explain what you mean please? Yann (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann, sorry if it wasn't clear. The above mentioned deletion request was executed without discussion. The uploader mentioned, unnoticed on their talk page, a permission via VTRS, so I kindly ask you to check the existing permission and check if the files can be undeleted. The above mentioned ticket no. should lead to the permission. I hope it's more understandable now. Elya (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elya: Then a RT volunteer should look at it. Of no one answers here, you can ask on COM:VRTN. Yann (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann thanks, I'll wait a bit, shouldn't be the first time a permission is late for the deletion request. Elya (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elya All files restored, a valid ticket was added to the images 3 minutes after the deletion request. Raymond (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files deleted by Explicit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rizal Monument, Naga City. However, Wikivoyage article on Naga City claims it is the oldest monument. This is supported by w:bcl:Quince Martires#Mga linobngan kan 15 martir, which states the Rizal Monument in Naga dates to at least 1918. So {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}} already. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wedd36-311x295.jpg and other images by Fkhuong

Sir/Madame,
Please restore these photographs uploaded by Fkhuong:

These photographs was uploaded by Fkhuong, and was deleted later due to a deletion request from an IP user. After checking the information of the uploader of these photos and the related information, I found that the deletion of these photos was hasty and probably incorrect:
As implied by the its username, he is probably a member of the Khuong family from Vietnam and a relative of Khương Hữu Bá (see Khương Hữu Bá) and others. And Mr. Lộc is the son of Mr. Bá.
Included in these photographs are Mr. Bá, an officer of the Republic of Vietnam Navy, Mrs. Bá, the sister of a famous Vietnamese lawyer and government minister (Trần Ngọc Liễng), and there children. These photographs demonstrate the life of a former Republic of Vietnam naval officer in the United States and can be used in the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Therefore these are not just personal photographs, but educational and historical photographs, so I would ask that they be undeleted. --源義信 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dr Khuong Huu Long Health Minister.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam,
I request that this portrait be restored for the following reasons:

  1. The uploader of the photograph (FKhuong) claims to be the owner of the photograph. According to his username and edits, he is a member of the family and seems to be a grandson of Mr. Long, so I think we can assume that his claim is valid.
  2. According to the information on this page (Image), the photo was taken in 1947, so it is already in the public domain in Vietnam (and the USA) so PD-Vietnam applies to this document.
  3. This is an educational photograph, a portrait photo of a government minister of Vietnam.

--源義信 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mia foto Wikipedia.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing this message to restore the avatar photo Mia foto Wikipedia.jpg for entry Marcello Musto. The photographer and copyright holder of the photo permitted me to use this photo in an email. If necessary I can upload or shows the Email receipt in order to prove the evidence. Thank you very much for your help.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=755577566"