Jump to content

Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion.
Archives: 1, 2

Four proposed additions to the text

[edit]
When we introduce {{SD}}
Please be careful to write "SD", not "sd" or "Sd": the latter mean "Sindhi language".
For G11
For copyright violations, please use {{copyvio|reason or source}} rather than {{speedydelete|G11}} or {{SD|G11}}.
For C1
For badly-named categories, after moving any contents feel free to use {{badname|correct name}} rather than {{speedydelete|C1}} or {{C1}}.
For F8
For duplicates, please use {{duplicate|other file}} rather than {{speedydelete|F8}} or {{SD|F8}}.

Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

desole je me suis trompé sur la photo je veux modifier je n'arrive pas si vous supprimez je vais le reprendre Gonemili Grace (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should I post on Wikipedia?..

[edit]

what type of post should I post here on Wikipedia? Can I post a story book or upload my documents like pictures and videos or an audio track song... Masteryucap02 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Template:Db-multiple on Commons

[edit]

I found out when trying to add multiple speedy deletion tags using Twinkle that Commons doesn't have a Template:Db-multiple. I know Twinkle on Commons is currently experimental, but can someone create a Template:Db-multiple? Un assiolo (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G2 on redirected categories?

[edit]

Re Category:Eurofighter Typhoon braking parachutes Unused and implausible redirect (G2): author's request on creation day

Is it a valid G2 when a used and stable category is moved (undiscussed, naturally), and the redirect then G2'ed? This is far from an 'implausible redirect', it had been the category name for a year and a half and that format of the name is still the one matching the rest of the sibling categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the text in a deletion?

[edit]

I have changed the meaning of GA1 to "Gallery page without at least two images or other media files" in this page (see User talk:JopkeB#Gallery pages with only 1 image), but when I use this code in a gallery, the old text is used in the deletion, see for example Giusto Le Court. How can I change that text as well? I think it is hidden somewhere, but I cannot find the right place. JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved to Village pump JopkeB (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Spurred by Commons:Deletion requests/List of libraries in Paris, User_talk:Adamant1#Monuments historiques in Paris and other places.

Speedy deletion is not there to be speedy. It is there for when things can be speedy. When there is a reason so clear, so unarguable, that no reasonable Commons editor would be expected to have a good reason to disagree. The simple stuff, not the stuff where someone wants it done in a hurry, or they want it done without having to fill out a DR.

A complex deletion is never a candidate for speedy. If there needs to be a case made as to why, that is not a candidate for speedy. In a case like this it is several pages, each of which represents significant editor effort to have created, and where there's already a talk: thread running about it, then very clearly these are nothing like any sort of 'simple' deletion that would be uncontested. So they are not speedy candidates.

We have two current criteria for speedy deletion that apply specifically to galleries:

GA1. Gallery page without at least two images or other media files
Mainspace pages (galleries) that are empty or contain no useful content, such as pages that contain text but no images or other media.
GA2. User intended to create encyclopedic content
Page intended to be an encyclopedic article. Articles and biographies belong to the Wikipedia projects, and are out of Commons's project scope.

Both of these are reasons for deletion of galleries, but not (IMHO) reasons for speedy deletion.

In the first, it isn't clear why a gallery only has one image in it. Was this a valid and valued gallery where images have just been deleted sufficient to depopulate it to only one? Even in a case where there are many other candidate images which might easily be added. Yet, as currently stated, this is not only a reason for deletion, it's a reason for speedy deletion without further notice or discussion.

In the second, then it's a good reason to avoid hosting encyclopedia articles here. Yet can this be handled through the speedy process? Look at the Paris museum and library pages - they're simply too complicated an issue to handle in this way.

We do not need speedy deletion. We always still have regular deletion. We might even still do that for these same reasons, the point is that we will do it by a more measured process of discussion, rather than single-handed one-opinion deletion.

I can see no way to make these two criteria robust enough to use for speedy deletion, therefore I propose that they are removed. We still have regular deletion and these would be good reasons to seek that. If anyone can instead reword them to address the issues here, then that might also be a solution. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak support rather than single-handed one-opinion deletion. Just an FYI but there was a discussion about adding the "single image" criteria to the guideline. There was a discussion on the Village Pump about deleting galleries that were under a certain amount of bytes that essentially everyone supported at the time. So I wouldn't say this whole thing was based purely on mine or anyone else's opiniom. That said, both discussions probably could have had more participation and thought put into them. As there's clearly to many kinds of galleries and opinions about it on both sides to make a blanket judgement that they should qualify for speedy deletion. At least at this point. Although that's with the caviet that I don't think galleries that have been speedy deleted so far shouldn't just undeleted in mass purely because the guideline is being changed. Undeletions shoulds still go through normal process and judged on individual merrit. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy Dingley, for starting this discussion. I agree that:
  • Speedy deletions should only be used when it is clear that no reasonable Commons editor would be expected to have a good reason to disagree.
  • A complex deletion is never a candidate for speedy. For me a gallery which represents significant editor effort is such a complex deletion. And also if a discussion about similar gallery pages is going on (no matter whether it represents significant editor effort or not), then it is clear that the deletion is not 'simple' and would be uncontested.
  • GA2. User intended to create encyclopedic content is no reason for speedy deletion. At least the creator should get time to move or copy the content to a better place.
But I do think there are many gallery pages that meet the criteria of GA1. Gallery page without at least two images or other media files. But I now think the description needs some additions:
  • Exclude gallery pages which represents significant editor effort.
  • Before nominating a gallery page for speedy deletion based on GA1, the editor who intend to do this and the administrator who actually deletes the gallery page should both check the history of the gallery page to see wether the gallery page once contained more images; and in case of yes: then the gallery page can still be nominated for deletion, but not with a speedy deletion.
--JopkeB (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But further to that for GA1, I think we should also recognise the situation of an 'empty gallery' on top of a category of many potential images. If we could simply populate that gallery from resources we already have, then why delete it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting something empty is pretty harmless, as long as we recognize that is deletion without prejudice against future creation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment no reasonable Commons editor would be expected to have a good reason to disagree is a good definition for eligibility of a speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The standards for galleries should be raised rather than lowered. Speey deletions for a gallery with one image is the absolute bare minimum but honestly it should be higher still. No other Wikiproject would accept this in any other area. Not even Commons does, outside of gallery pages, which are somehow exempt from any semblance of quality control. I don't get it at all. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality standards for galleries have relatively little to do with their suitability for speedy deletion. The issue isn't which galleries should be deleted (or improved), but whether their assessment against those can be done by an unexamined speedy process. Even if the quality standards were raised, that doesn't affect our ability to judge unilaterally and uncontroversially against them. Nor does it change the issues of underpopulation when other resources are available.
I'm no fan of galleries, I'm not here to advocate for their preservation. I see them as disconnected in function (editorial showcasing) from our role as a media repository. But we do use content-filled infoboxes too, so overlap (not essential, but allowable and with useful value) doesn't have to imply harmful contradiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the same be said for every criteria for speedy deletion? Like G3 is for "content intended as vandalism, threat, or attack." How is deciding the intent to create content for the purposes of vandalism not done unilaterally, or in an any less unexamined way, then deciding if a gallery was created for the intent to create encyclopedic content? I've certainly seen different opinions about what does or doesn't qualify as vandalism on here. Your just arbitrarily drawing the line at galleries for some reason when the same standards could just as easily apply to everything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose per ReneeWrites when it comes to GA1. The average quality and usefulness of galleries is very low and something needs to be done about it, if anything add more speedy deletion criteria if that helps with that. Many of these galleries may even be created a decade or so ago (and then left untouched) by a bot. When it comes to GA2 I'd agree that the creator should be given time to save the contents somewhere and if the gallery is good otherwise it may mean it should only be trimmed/edited instead of being deleted. The intention doesn't matter, it's the gallery that should matter regarding whether or not deletion and which kind thereof is needed/due. However, that criteria could probably be edited, SD may be due when the page converted to gallery format wouldn't make sense etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose. These criteria, with their bright-line definitions, make it easier for users to nominate and easier for overburdened Admins to delete, rather than using DRs. Removing them would only make more work for those people.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But these are not simple bright-line definitions, that's the problem. We don't currently have any criteria for galleries where they are clear enough to support an SD process.
Deletion for GA1 has the problem noted above: we don't want empty galleries, but surely not deleting a gallery for being empty (maybe freshly empty, or emptied deliberately) when the category still contains plenty of candidates? I would perhaps support a changed GA1, worded that if the category is empty (i.e. the gallery can't be refilled easily) then we could delete it.
For GA2, "User intended to create encyclopedic content" is too subjective. For one thing, it assumes that the nominator is psychic and can magically infer a past editor's intentions ! We have to base any of these criteria on objective judgements about the state of content, at the contemporary time, not about how it got there. As to whether a page is 'encyclopedic content' or not, that's just too complex a judgement to ignore any discussion over it (because that's what CSD's effect is, it's nothing about speed). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For GA2, "User intended to create encyclopedic content" is too subjective. There's better examples out there, but what do you think about a "gallery" like List of libraries in Paris? It's clearly written and formatted like a Wikipedia article. I don't think it's subjective to say that the intent behind a "gallery" that's clearly written and formatted like a Wikipedia article was to "create encyclopedic content." At least with List of libraries in Paris it was obviously created to be a mainly text based informational page about libraries in Paris, not a "structured and meaningful collection of media." So I don't see why it wouldn't, or shouldn't, qualify for GA2. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would not want to see that speedied. It already has, within it, a proper gallery of 8 photos that would be a good start on a conventional gallery page, and the table there could easily be extended into a good table-formatted gallery by adding a column for images. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily "want" it speedy deleted either at this point. I was threatened by Yann because I nominated it for deletion based on GA2 a month ago though and I'd still argue its clearly formatted like encyclepedic content regardless. So the point is to decide where the line is. If that's not it cool, but there should be one. Otherwise its totally pointless to have GA2. There's clearly no consensus to remove it though.
So we're kind of left with an issue where there seems to be agreement that GA2 is worth having, but its totally hollow because all galleries probably have some potential for improvement. I don't really care either way myself. I'd just like to see some kind of standard that isn't subjective and toothless if GA2 remains in the guidelines. So if that gallery doesn't qualify for GA12 cool. Which ones would then? or is there none? Otherwise I guess it could be fleshed out on a "per threat of block basis" or whatever, but that's clearly suboptimal at best. I don't think guidelines should be applied or defined based the whims of admins and how likely they are to threaten users over it at the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: there is no GA12, so I assume you mean GA2. I think the criterion should be that it consists solely of encyclopedia-like content, does not contain the contents of an acceptable gallery within it, nor does it contain a table that has (or has obvious potential to add) a column that would contain images.
In my view if you encounter what is effectively a Wikipedia article here, it is worth checking:
  • Does it essentially duplicate an article in one of the Wikipedias? I would certainly "speedy" that.
  • Is it likely to be worth moving to one of the Wikipedias as an article? Cool, we should do that. (We'd need to copy-paste the history to the new article's talk page for legal reasons, though).
  • Otherwise if the person (and it almost always is one person) who created it is still active, give them a chance to salvage their content somewhere else.
  • Is it basically junk? Speedy it as G1.
That's not exhaustive, but my point is: try not to throw away other people's potentially useful work as a way of cleaning up gallery space. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Is it likely to be worth moving to one of the Wikipedias as an article? I don't really have an issue with that. There's no reason the content in List of libraries in Paris can't be transferred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libraries in Paris. I'm actually kind of surprised it doesn't already have a list. I'd also generally support adding something along the lines of "if the contents of a gallery can be moved to Wikipedia, do so before nominating it for speedy deletion" to the policy. It seems like the general thing of determining what is or isn't "encyclopedic content" would still be an issue though. Like if I were to transfer List of libraries in Paris over to Wikipedia and nominate the gallery for speedy deletion based on GA2, Yann could still revert it and threaten to block me since he still doesn't think it's "encyclopedic content" regardless. I don't have a problem with the contents of "list galleries" being moved to Wikipedia though. Everyone else has to agree and go along with it though, or I don't really see the point otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: which brings us back to the basic rule of thumb: don't use speedy deletion for things where there is liable to be controversy about deleting.
If you already know there is another experienced user likely to disagree with you, use a DR or CfD, not speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I wouldn't call a personal disagreement between two people over the definition of something a "controversy." It certainly never is when I disagree with anyone about anything. Regardless, I don't think the fact that users can contest something if they think it's controversial works here anyway because the guideline itself is what's controversial, not specific speedy deletion nominations based on GA2. At the end of the day the guideline is clearly ambiguous and no one agrees about it. But the guidelines should still be applicable as it's currently written. If it says that a gallery created with the intent to be an encyclopedic article qualifies for GA2 then it should be clear about what exactly that means and when it applies. Otherwise the criteria should just be removed. I don't think leaving it purely up to the personal whims of either side is really adequate. Otherwise this whole thing wouldn't have been an issue to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I don't think that should be a speedy deletion criterion, at least not as written. If it's above the level to delete as nonsense, we'll almost always want a place to discuss what (if anything) to do with the content. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly expand F10 to include AI?

[edit]

COM:F10 is currently:

F10. Personal photos by non-contributors
Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions.

In recent months this has seen some use for speedy deletion of AI images, in cases where the uploader just seems to be uploading unused AI images that interest them personally. I've seen a number of DR discussions closed with an admin comment of "F10", and have taken to marking such content as F10 when I see it.

It seems fair to regard AI images as being equivalent to personal doodles. If somebody is thinking about what an astronaut riding a dinosaur might look like, with no purpose in mind for the image, it doesn't make much difference whether they quickly draw it by hand or quickly ask an AI to create it. If the image isn't being used for anything and the user isn't contributing to any projects, Commons doesn't need to have a full discussion about whether to host it.

Should the F10 definition be expanded to explicitly mention AI-generated images from users who have no constructive global contributions, to make it clearer that it covers this? Belbury (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a data point, I've just noticed somebody removing an F10 template from somebody else's AI-generated image of a parrot because they felt that it was "not a personal file". This is the first time that I've noticed anyone do that, for an AI image that I'd tagged as F10. Belbury (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea, but I'm not sure if we need a separate criterion altogether? I feel I am/we are missing something here. I guess we can delete AI-generated 'duplicates' and 'copyvios' under the respective existing criteria...? Rehman 08:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think AI art is not any different than amateur art; it's just that AI has made it much easier to create non-photographic images of high apparent quality, though not necessarily higher educational value. Rather, photographs are the exception rather than the rule. In terms of de facto strictness of COM:SCOPE rules, images fall into three categories (note that these are general observations and I'm sure there are exceptions): 1) images created by a notable artist are inherently in scope regardless of their subject (as long as there are no copyright issues); 2) photos taken by a normal person are assumed to be in scope unless they fall into certain categories (e.g. non-notable people, blurry/low-quality, etc.); 3) non-photographic images created by a normal person are assumed to be not in scope unless they fall into certain categories (e.g. in use, realistic drawing of notable person with no free photos, etc.). Most things that can be photographed would be allowed under 2 (photos) but not 3 (drawings or AI generations): animals, plants, landscapes, buildings, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. @Belbury: Yes, I support this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1027537965"