Commons:Undeletion requests
Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV
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.
Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:
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.
- if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
- 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
Current requests
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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- @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)
Oppose First please note that
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Arnaud Askoy (Alhambra) by Sandrine Mulas
Dear Commons administrators,
I am writing to request the undeletion of the portrait of the singer Arnaud Askoy that was recently deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Below is an explanation of the situation:
Image Source: The image was provided to me by the music production agency ARTCOSCENE, which represents Arnaud Askoy. They shared the image with me via Google Drive specifically for use in a Wikipedia article about him. Author and Rights: The photograph was taken by Sandrine Mulas. While she is the author of the image, the rights to the image now belong to ARTCOSCENE, who manage and control its usage. They have permitted its use for informational purposes. Purpose of the Image: The image is intended solely for use in a Wikipedia article about Arnaud Askoy. Its inclusion is important to visually represent the subject for educational and non-commercial purposes. Proposed Solution: I believe the image aligns with Wikimedia Commons’ mission to provide freely licensed media for educational use. If further documentation or clarification regarding the image rights is required, I am willing to provide more details or work with ARTCOSCENE if absolutely necessary. I appreciate your time and assistance in reviewing this request. Please let me know if there are specific steps I need to follow to facilitate the undelete process.
Best regards, --Coquelicotrouge (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Images hosted in Commons must have a free license that anyone can use with any purpose, and that includes among other comercial usage. If the right holders agree on releasing it under a free license, please ask them to send an explicit permission via COM:VRT.Günther Frager (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Two files that are now in the public domain since it's 2025.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are in the public domain in the United States as of 2025-01-01, so please undelete. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- For me, it is still December 31st. They will be undeleted tomorrow. Yann (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. Still 2024. Thuresson (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no reason to close this for a few hours just to open it again. @Yann: are you saying that you will definitely do it whenever it's the 1st in your time zone or something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, to be clear, it will be 2025 in Guam in a few minutes, so at least for part of the United States, it is 2025 very soon. If we want to wait until it is in Florida or San Francisco or whatever, great, but I don't see the value in closing this discussion for a period of a few hours. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I am OK to keep it open until tomorrow. There will be a lot of work to undelete a lot of files, but yes, I will do it tomorrow. Yann (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merci, mon frere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no reason to close this for a few hours just to open it again. @Yann: are you saying that you will definitely do it whenever it's the 1st in your time zone or something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll undelete this in about 11 hours. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support I don't understand. Ludwig Wittgenstein died 29 April 1951. The work was first published in Austria in 1921 in German and 1922 in English. Therefore, URAA does not apply, so both versions were under copyright until 70 PMA, or 1/1/2022.
Lynd Ward died in 1985 and God's Man was published in 1929, so 1/1/2025 would be the PD date if the copyright had notice and had been renewed. There is, however, no copyright notice in the version of the book we have here, so it apparently was PD from the moment of publication in 1929.
Therefore the debate above is moot, as the one has been PD for three years and the other for 95 years. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Done: as per Jim. Not need to wait. --Yann (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.
- “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
- Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
- The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.
Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the file Meir_Nir.jpg that was recently removed from Wikipedia. I am the copyright owner of this image and hold the exclusive rights to use and distribute it.
I uploaded the file under a free license to contribute to the Wikipedia project and confirm that I have the authority to do so. If additional documentation or a declaration of ownership is required, I am happy to provide it.
Please let me know if further steps are necessary to restore the file to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter.
Thank you for your time and support.
Best regards, --Juststreamit (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose EXIF data says "Artist Shay-lee, Copyright Shay-lee". We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello the photographer of this photo gave permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page. He was notified on December 11 that it would take around 5 days for it to be processed but the image/file was deleted on December 25. This is the file.
--Edbirdwell76 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The problem may be that "permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page" is not sufficient, Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere, not just on WP. Please make sure that the photographer has actually sent a free license and not just the limited one you describe above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The photographer said they did send a release to Wikipedia that it was okay to use the photo, this was back on December 11th. Should I forward the email correspondence the photographer had with Wikipedia? Edbirdwell76 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note that User:Mark Umstot has uploaded the image with a CC-BY-4.0 license. That is the name of the photographer, but we have no way here of verifying that User:Mark Umstot is not an imposter. We see many of them here. Either Mr. Umstot can send a message from umstot.com to VRT verifying that the user is him or he can put a note on https://umstot.com/contact-us/ saying that he is User:Umstot here. In either case we will put a short note on his user page, User:Mark Umstot, confirming the identity. The image can then be restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)