Commons talk:Project scope/Archive 3

Category:Commons talk archives#Project%20scope

Mass upload of self promotional pictures

What about pictures about a person or institution where each single picture may be considered to be within scope, but by the sheer mass the entirety of the images is clearly self-promotional? Specifically, I'm talking about the Category:Mason Ewing. More than 100 pictures in this category and its subcategories, showing this user at all possible occasions, or his drawings. In the past, I have registered the VRT release for most of these images. Now there are again three tickets in support for approval, and I have to say, in the meantime I feel abused for self-promotion in my work as a support agent. Any opinions on this?

Pinging @Ewing Mason, to give him the opportunity to comment..

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this user seems to abuse Commons by promoting himself and their company. On the other hand, other famous businessmen/artists and their companies also have hundreds of photos... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems harmless to me. A marginally notable person, probably bordering on Wikipedia-notable. I think it would be reasonable to ask them not to do a lot more of this, but I don't think what we have is all that excessive. There are probably a few people or organizations at about that level of notability where I've done a couple of dozen photos. - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused and naïve about this. The subject is apparently blind, so I can see perhaps a barrier to working with photos and/or uploading files here. But also seems to have his own account here, and the few photos I spot-checked are licensed with "Own Work". So I don't understand the burden to VRT in this case. Do we not allow most Commons users to upload "Own Work" without constantly hitting VRT? How is this a special case? Elizium23 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I would also say that perhaps Commons has a systemic problem of scale.
I can see that editors on Wikipedia encyclopedia-based projects generally get involved in improving and expanding articles, the discussions and stuff that go on to collaborate on the projects. It's very interactive and it seems enticing to want to become an administrator in that milieu, so it's likely that a certain percentage of good editors move on to become admins.
However, Commons has a completely different culture, and it's rather isolating. I can easily see plenty of Commons users just sort of interested in shoveling all their free photos onto the website without concern for what others are doing, with no sense of collaboration or community, and those users are unlikely to show any interest in volunteering or adminship.
Commons is a popular place but I've often hit bureaucratic backlogs and delays that indicate a dearth of active admins.
I'm sorry you have to deal with such things. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This person has an article in 15 Wikipedias, so IMO it is sufficiently notable to have that number of pictures on Commons. Yann (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Yann, although it should be noted that some of these article are automatic translations by the same user. However, I can't see his notability challenged in any Wikipedia, so he is notable enough to keep the images in spite of his promotion efforts.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
On the side point about his being blind, why would that be any kind of issue? Blind people have great technology for interfacing with computers and the Internet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Correct, @Ikan Kekek, so if this user owns his own account and is uploading his own work, (although it seemed far more likely to me that photographs are the work of a sighted photographer, rather than a self-timer) why in the world does VRT even need to get involved??? Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
There are a few common probabilities here; forgive me for being inaccurate or insensitive to disability:
  1. Ewing takes all his own photos by self-timer and transfers copyright to his corporation. Ewing owns his own Commons editor account and uploads his own photos. This is the scenario which is indicated by the metadata they're providing. Commons:Username policy in fact requires that the owner of this account must be the person identified by that name, so presumably, Ewing has provided proof of identity to VRT as well.
  2. Ewing is photographed by third parties and they provide the photographs to him, assigning copyright to the corporation, whereby he uploads the photos here and uses COM:VRT to affirm copyright transference. This is not indicated by metadata, because no third-party "authors" are credited.
  3. Someone other than Ewing operates his Commons editor account and uploads photos on Ewing's behalf. COM:VRT is invoked as this person is a third party who affirms the proper transference and copyright, and right to upload said photos.
So, IMHO, something's not right here: either Ewing doesn't need VRT and shouldn't be burdening VRT with requests, or Ewing isn't being truthful about authorship/account ownership and we need to figure out why VRT is involved with this, if they doesn't seem to be necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think and didn't suggest that VRT needs to be involved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello the whole Wikimedia team, I come here to clarify the situation about the pics I uploaded on the website.
  • First at all I begin at the beginning, how these pics have been taken. That’s a photographer under contract with me. Together, we determined I’m the author of the pics because I tell him what I want, the shots, the style, the place. Of course he advices me on the details (exposition balance, etc) but I take the decisions and he pushes on the button. For the whom who don’t know that, I have been a sighted person for a long time before to turn tragically blind. But I wanna precise I have a contract with this photographer and he doesn’t ask the be credited as pic’s author for the above reasons.
  • Concerning the uploading, the technology allows the disabled persons a great autonomy. That’s the same, even if some people can help sometime, I can manage a lot of aspects.

As Humanity and Inclusion ambassador, I intend to highlight that us, disabled persons wanna show to the world we can be independent. Make the same things as a sighted one is more reachable than you can believe. About the diffusion of the pics themselves on Wikimedia:

  • Fortunately, I’m far from upload all the pics I have. I don’t consider Wikimedia as a ad platform because if I wanna get ad with my pics, first at all I’ll use the provided platforms. The few I have on have been taken by photographers I don’t know.
  • Even if some ones can be surprised, I don’t flout about the Wikimedia Foundation’s community and collaborative minds. Due to my blindness, I cannot code articles, my vocal synthesis are limited. But I suggested articles to volunteers about persons marking the culture, like artists, athletes, politicians from Africa and Europe.

If I break the rules of Wikimedia, please apologize me but that’s not deliberately al all. On the other hand, I read your comments and I understand I upload so much. It seems more relevant to upload only the most important of them. Plus, I intend to highlight that the moderators of Wikimedia asked me this a day and I replied them. Finally I also wanna precise that if I put my own name of Wikimedia, that’s for transparency. For me, it seemed unwelcome to hide myself behind a pseudo/false account. I hope I replied to all your questions.--Ewingmason (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the legal intricacies of this, and this talk page is the wrong forum for hashing this all out, but if I understand correctly, this is not how Wikimedia Commons defines authorship of a photograph, but it definitely does explain why VRT is perpetually involved for every upload. Thank you for explaining. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Userpage images

This has just made some poorly-worded policy worse. It now limits user images here to if you are an active, constructive participant on Commons. Which has a number of problems: it excludes those who are active on other WM projects but not Commons, and it also qualifies this to 'active' and 'constructive' editors. Editors may have been active at one time, but no longer - are their images to be deleted? Also 'constructive' is highly subjective and is formally undefined, because it's much too contentious to do so.

These might seem like small points, but this is a policy page, thus sets precedents. Can I now go through and delete all the user images for any editors whom I see as "too deletionist"? They're not 'constructive' in my opinion, and there's no better guideline to say otherwise! We already have enough problems with single editors re-writing policy pages in mid-argument to justify their 'case'. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm basically with Andy on this. If we want to elaborate the statement of when we do and don't allow images as a courtesy, I'd rather see that taken up on a separate page than to try to sort out a lot of subtlety here on something that is pretty tangential to the project at large. Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It should definitely be broadened to any WMF wiki, but I don’t see any problem with the ‘active’ part: it says the uploading […] is allowed if you are an active […] participant (emphasis mine) – this means that you shouldn’t upload personal images if you’re no longer an active participant, but it doesn’t mean that your already-uploaded images can’t remain.
Constructiveness can (and should) be interpreted very broadly, only excluding people who do nothing but vandalize pages, do test edits, post spam etc. People who start deletion requests en masse without any grounds and any visible issues with the files/pages are not constructive, but people who create them with grounds that are not totally made up – however much you disagree with their reasoning – are constructive. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
In the section above, there is The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. Isn't that sufficiently clear? Yann (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
My suggestion would be: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on personal user pages of Commons or other projects is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on at least one project. This allows posting the images on Meta. The Meta user page appears on projects where users have no project-specific user page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • If it's permissible wording because it's contradicted by another statement on this page, then it should be deleted as duplication. This is a policy page: it needs to state things clearly, completely and just the once. Duplication (and worse, partial duplication) is often as bad as omission. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Just want to point out that there's a contradiction elsewhere - COM:SPEEDY criterion F10 uses the wording "no constructive global contributions." This is significantly more permissive and, imo, preferable since it sidesteps the issues of "what about other projects" and "what if someone used to be active." It also avoids the issue of "constructive" being subjective because it's exceedingly unlikely that a non-vandal will have no constructive edits anywhere. At any rate, it seems strange that the wording on this page is narrower than the criteria for speedy deletion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Outdated (does not reflect current admin practices): policy amendment for in-scope exceptions

I suggest adding something like the below to the section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose":

Moreover, administrators can decide that an image is to be deleted despite being legitimately in use on another Wikimedia project site. Elaborating multiple specific realistic use-cases is also not sufficient for an image to be in scope if participants of a deletion discussion vote otherwise and a closing admin agrees. Subsequent undeletion requests can be rejected if the majority by headcount of participants vote for keeping the file deleted.

This is to reflect actions such as the deletion of these files and the rejection of their undeletion:

This seems to happening increasingly often with AI art against which there seems to be a bias. For example, a near-exact look-alike of this image was deleted despite the elaborated use-cases which may not be obvious when just briefly thinking about it (assuming we can and must always anticipate educational usefulness cases rather than realistic broad potential) as well as the most high-quality image for illustrating Category:Anachronism in art and fiction at the time. However, at the time it was not in use and no undeletion request was made. At the same time there seems to be a bias pro photographs where nearly everything is kept/not discouraged if at high-resolution even if no specific use-case is clear, there are countless photographs of the same, and no use-case gets elaborated in DRs. However, let's just focus on deletions that aren't compatible with current WMC policy here. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  • The first example here seems rather tendentious. You added it as a second image to a Wikidata item that already had a longstanding image. Normal practice on Wikidata is to have only one image per item, and the [:File:Amazing stories 193702.jpg|existing image there] was certainly an appropriate one. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    That image is low quality – low resolution and you can't even decipher what it's supposed to depict if you didn't know it beforehand. Also it's very old, doesn't necessarily look like insects, and is only a cover with text where a high-resolution image of such contents was previously missing and nicely complements it. It could probably also be useful in some Wikipedia article but why would Wikidata not be enough? It's educationally valuable, in scope, and rather unique here. Again if both neither realistical educational value (multiple have been specified) nor being in use does not matter, then the policy needs a change. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  • The second example is beyond tendentious, into the realm of the laughable. No, these were not "high-quality medieval scenes". Leaving aside the six-fingered monarch and the based-on-roughly-nothing representation of Giovanna herself, they were at about a level suitable for illustrating a children's book, and to the best of my knowledge they were not in use by any other project (though I'm ready to stand corrected on that last point; am I wrong?). There was a strong (about 80%) consensus to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes some of these had, probably easily fixable, misgeneration issues. However, most didn't have and they weren't low quality when you compare it with other art that depicts such scenes in terms of various aspects such as within high-resolution modern/digital art. These images are not (only) about any person depicted in them despite the file/cat title. For example it can illustrate how AI art can be used to depict scenes of the past or long gone people where we only have very few (in this case one) image made during their lifetime depicting them.
So you are saying consensus overrides being in use. Again, this is not what this policy claims so it needs an update so that it means that votecounts are more important than that. However, I wouldn't call three votes (+admin) with refuted arguments "strong" consensus at all. And yes, like I said you are wrong on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope we're not using user-generated AI art to illustrate historical scenes. There are serious accuracy problems with that – here is one example.
Still, I oppose the proposed policy change, because I agree with the current text of COM:INUSE: "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." I think images should not be deleted as out-of-scope if they are in use on a content page of another project (except maybe some exceptional cases like obvious vandalism). —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
No, certainly not in this case where it's not about specific historical scenes anyway but about artistic depictions of the past. Of course can there be accuracy problems. There can also be accuracy problems with paintings and images made with Photoshop. There clearly are accuracy problems here. However, the images are still useful. It's that people coming to this have one specific potential use-case in mind and then seeing how these images do not match their high standards for that particular usecase narrowly want it deleted. But it's not about that particular use-case(s) anyway / various assumptions are flawed. Secondarily, images that do not meet high standards can still be useful. For example: to illustrate how hamburgers are depicted in contemporary advertisements at high resolution, inaccuracy is not just common or an early fixable disclaimable issue but even required since in that case it's basically the whole point (and there was no such image before – it's different for subjects for which there are multiple equivalents). It's one thing to delete a few images out of a large set but another to delete few in-use ones so I don't see how that is possible with current policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem was/is that the files were in use because Prototyperspective cynically decided to add them to other projects once it was clear no one agreed with that the files were eductional. Per the guidelines "The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose. An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph." Prototyperspective seems to under the false impression that them simply saying the files are eductional for "X purpose" or adding them to a sister project automatically makes them in scope. That's not how it works though. There needs to be a "realistic utility" and most people agreed there wasn't one. Partially due to the historical inaccuracy, but also because Commons just don't allow for amateur artwork by non-notable people to begin with. Again per the guidelines, "any use that is not made in good faith does not count."

That said, maybe you could argue there's a double standard when it comes to allowing for amateur photography but not artwork. That's a different discussion though and negate the fact that this whole is thing tendentious and bad faithed on its face. Especially since Prototyperspective knows COM:INUSE isn't a free pass or valid excuse to ignore consensus. Although I'd be open to discussing there being stricter rules around amateur photography, but I doubt Prototyperspective wants to do that and it probably wouldn't go anywhere anyway. That seems like the best way to balance things out if this is really such an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  • As an admin, I usually strictly apply COM:INUSE, but of course I wouldn't necessarily see COM:INUSE as applicable if an image was added to projects in the course of a deletion discussion by a participant to make a point. Seems pretty obvious to me and I don't think that any policy changes / additions are necessary. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    No, it was not added "to make a point". When specific realistic use-cases are elaborated and not addressed or even refuted afterwards as well as at least one of them implemented via the file being in-use, but the file is deleted regardless how would this be compatible with realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above scope delineations? It fails the scope definition twice. The files in use were few and the ant one was unique and the same deletion previously occurred for the only image sufficiently illustrating the modern concept of the category linked above and so on despite being a less notable subject). People just increasingly vote out by headcount various useful relatively unique images made using AI tool indiscriminately and without sufficient basis in policy and kind of ignore all realistic use-cases even when files are in use or when their later equivalents are in use. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    Every AI-generated image is "unique" given a sufficiently specific description of its contents. But that doesn't mean they're all useful. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support adding the first sentence of the proposal. The other sentences are unnecessary and Commons doesn't work by voting anyway. Nosferattus (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely oppose that sentence "Moreover, administrators can decide that an image is to be deleted despite being legitimately in use on another Wikimedia project site". That would open a can of worms. There is one exception to COM:INUSE, that is copyright concerns, and this is already clear enough. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. As someone who supported the undeletion requests, this is just disrupting the Commons to make a point. COM:INUSE only applies to good-faith uses. At the time, I made a mistake and came to the conclusion that, despite your bludgeoning, your additions were good-faith uses, and supported the undeletion request on that basis. Based on your subsequent conduct, and reconsidering my view of your prior conduct, I am forced to conclude that these were not, in fact, placed in good faith, and rather that they were placed either to 'save' an image from deletion without considering the appropriateness of the placement or make a larger point about AI images. Prototyperspective: you need to drop the stick. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I see no evidence that current practise is out-of-alignment with policy, nor do I see evidence of a genuine issue requiring a policy change. Current policy requires a file be "legitimately in use." An advocate of retention slapping an unused image into a sister project during a scope DR is not legitimate--there are numerous DRs with this finding and, as a symmetrical corollary, the inverse of removing an image to influence deletion is equally illegitimate. Alternatively stated: changing an image's use to influence the outcome of a scope-related DR is not legitimate vis-a-vis INUSE. Such gaming is nothing but a disingenuous ploy, a failure to appreciate the spirit of assessing dispassionate measures of educational use. Discussions here and elsewhere suggest that the flaw lies not with policy or practise, but with Prototyperspective's (mis)understanding of "legitimate" and (in)ability to listen to the many contrary opinions. Эlcobbola talk 23:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    All fine but one thing is not true at all: I did listen to the contrary opinions and directly addressed them. Besides elaborating unaddressed realistic usefulnesses, one thing I asked is simply why it would be fan art which simply wasn't answered.
    While changing an image's use to influence the outcome is not clear from the current policy phrasing, that's not what has been done; nevertheless your earlier elaborations make sense, contain good points that refer to policies, and I hope we can agree to disagree on how educational use is assessed in regards to the spirit of this policy as it's currently written. Probably last comment of mine here. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Pinging @Prototyperspective. Brianjd (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The definition of "legitimate" use regarding COM:NOTUSED

The section COM:NOTUSED introduces the concept of a file not "legitimately" being in use, but doesn't adequately define it. There have been several discussions about projectspace/userspace, but I want to address ambiguity where it comes to mainspace (as in Wikipedia articles, Wiktionary word pages, etc.): the role of the ratio of volunteers to content.

On the English Wikipedia, for example, there is a relatively high ratio of volunteers to content. If an image is added where it is not useful, it is more likely that it will be spotted and reverted. If not, it is relatively easy to recruit participants to a discussion to decide on its use. On projects with a relatively low ratio of volunteers to content like Wikidata or some of the smaller Wikipedias, it is unlikely for a poor image to be reverted and difficult to attract attention to decide the matter. Often, a Commons user with no connection to that language will just go in and remove the image in order to get around INUSE. That works, but it always feels subversive.

How could this page address a scenario like this: a user adds their own very low quality photo to an obscure page of the Latin Wikipedia. If the Latin Wikipedia had more volunteers, it could easily spot and remove this photo, however no volunteer has noticed and none of the people involved with the matter on Commons know Latin. On Commons, someone nominates it for deletion on the basis of it being very low quality but the creator argues it's COM:INUSE on the Latin Wikipedia. What happens next?

The fact is, Commons is a much bigger community than many small Wikimedia projects and has much greater capacity to assess the quality of an image. Is one solution to acknowledge this? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If a photo is added to a small Wiki against the local guideline and there are no local admins who can act against this then this is a case for global admins and stewards not for Commons. We can not make editorial decisions or admin actions on other Wikis. GPSLeo (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
In practice, we often do. All of us have accounts on all wikis, after all. I cannot recall the last time I did so personally, but when I remove something on enwiki, it's in my capacity as an enwiki editor rather than as a Commons editor imposing my will on enwiki. If I happen to see vandalism on a wiki I've never edited before, should I refrain from reverting and go talk to a global admin/steward? Or should I use my account on that wiki to undo an obviously bad edit? The question is, realistically, how confident you are that it clearly contradicts local policies. I don't typically edit other wikis because I don't know, but if it were an obvious case, I'd consider it. Do global admins/stewards regularly make edits that are simple editorial tasks of reverting a subpar (but not vandalism) edit? Regardless, if any mainspace use is automatically "legitimate" as far as commons is concerned, we should be clear about that. If the only way to delete something that's in use is for local users to find consensus against it or to solicit a decision by a global admin/steward, we should probably say that, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this. The role of admins and global stewards is to handle occasional tasks which require admin privileges, like deleting spam pages and blocking disruptive users. They aren't here to review all edits; there aren't enough hours in the day for that. Users of other wikis are expected to use their best judgement when evaluating edits on small language wikis. Omphalographer (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
First of all it's most hypothetical and has proven to largely be sufficient with it being intentionally broad. Still it may good to clarify this. An image relevant to some Latin-language Wikipedia being included in the article is clearly legitimately in use. If it seems highly illegitimate I think one would should first try to resolve this on the Wikipedia. That is for example pinging authors of the article and asking them. I've done this two times or so after which editors simply removed the identified problematic file after which it was no longer in use. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Stale discussion. What, exactly, is the problem here? If a project is unable (for any reason) to properly patrol additions of images to pages, then surely it is unable to properly patrol any type of edit, which is a fundamental problem that Commons cannot help with. Brianjd (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

‘Make a point’

Since Special:Diff/13008796 (discussion), this policy has said:

… images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted.

That makes it sound like ‘making a point’ is a bad thing. It doesn’t make any sense. Also, the focus on talk pages doesn’t make any sense. I propose to simply delete that sentence.

COM:POINT redirects to Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point, which says:

A shortcut to this page is COM:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Commons to illustrate it, which is the only circumstance under which someone should be warned about this essay.

Brianjd (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how we can say use on a talk page is enough to be in scope. Anyone, including someone with ill intent, can put something on a talk page, and the various wikis have, in various degrees, taboos or rules against editing someone else's comment on a talk page. Even without ill intent: it would mean any image that someone chose to show in the context of a discussion of whether it was in scope would then automatically be in scope! - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I can just see a discussion on German Wikipedia, where someone lists several not-in-scope images to make the point about the backlog of deletion on Commons, or how Commons admins are not doing their job properly, or about scope problems on Commons.. and through this action making it impossible to delete these images. Kritzolina (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it feasible to say everything a talk page is in scope. I do think that any image that someone used on a talk page to discuss whether it would be in scope for that page would be in scope for Commons; our scope includes any work that someone could argue in good faith should be used on one of our client's pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
It may be worth making a distinction between active discussions and stale ones. To extend your example a bit, if someone's just uploaded an image to ask if it'd be a good fit, Commons certainly shouldn't leap to delete that as out of scope. On the other hand, if it's been on the talk page for a while and any discussion has concluded, we shouldn't need to keep it forever, either. How long "a while" is debatable - and I don't think it needs a single exact answer, either, as different projects and talk pages move at different speeds - but something on the order of a few weeks is probably about right. Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Nothing in this discussion explains why the sentence I quoted should be kept. Note that COM:INUSE explicitly excludes talk pages anyway. So is everyone OK with deleting that sentence?
Since we’re talking about talk pages, my opinion is that media used in good faith on talk pages are in scope. Commons wouldn’t randomly delete text in the middle of a discussion on another project (regardless of whether it was active or stale), so it shouldn’t randomly delete media in the middle of a discussion on another project either. I have never understood other users’ eagerness to delete such media.
Obviously, media that is used (on any page) just to comment on the deletion process for that media is not brought into scope solely for that reason. I have seen that argument used to delete media on my own user page. Brianjd (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think distinctions about why it is used on a talk page will work (good faith, make a point, whatever). That requires the deciding admin to look at all related talk pages, and also (because "good faith" is so hard to determine) encourages those who want to save an image and wish to muddy the waters to spam it out to a bunch of talk pages.
I think we need something more like that the normal case is that use on a talk page (or a project page that is basically discussion, like VP or Help desk) is not a reason to keep an image, but allow special pleading in the discussion that a particular such usage merits keeping the image, and leave it up to admin discretion to determine whether it does. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

AI historical images

Hi, was there any previous discussion or consensus regarding the generation of images with AI related to historical events or periods? Are they within our scope or out of scope? Riad Salih (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no formal consensus at this time. However, as a matter of practice, most images of this type brought to DR have been deleted - typically on the grounds that the image has no factual, historical basis, and often that they fail to recognizably depict the intended event or period at all. There's been some discussion of this issue at Commons talk:AI-generated media. Omphalographer (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

COM:INUSE and non-content pages

On Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hackers, User:Matrix raised some concerns that the wording of this passage leaves some doubt as to whether files used in userspace are considered "in use":

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

[ ... ]

It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope.

Would it be appropriate to add some wording such as:

A media file that is in use in a content page on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a project page, a template or the like.

to clarify that images used in non-content namespaces are not considered COM:INUSE? Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Partly, this seems to follow from the next sentence: "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project." So, COM:INUSE already says that images "for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project" are only acceptable in "small numbers". I don't see a pressing need for changes to the existing wording. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: No, it says that they are definitely acceptable in small numbers, but leaves open the possibility that they are also acceptable in larger numbers. Brianjd (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Formally, yes. But I'd say that explicitly stating that uploading in "small numbers" is acceptable somewhat implies that we wouldn't want large numbers of these images. If you think that's unclear, I would be open to a rephrasing, something like: "The uploading of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project and as long as it is a small number of images." Gestumblindi (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it’s a moot point, because (ignoring Omphalographer’s original concerns, which I will address is a separate comment) no other policy actually allows such images in larger numbers. In fact, this policy explicitly prohibits that: Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope will be deleted as OOS (Out Of Scope). Brianjd (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: I agree that the original wording is very confusing. First we have A media file that is in use on one of the other projects, with no qualification. That might include a file in use in a user page. But then it would also include a file in use for some operational reason, whatever that means, even though that is presented as a separate concept. Later, we have the surprise exception of aside from use on talk pages or user pages, which covers not only user pages but also talk pages.
But I think your proposed wording is confusing too. It introduces the terms content page and project page without defining them. In particular, many project pages are dedicated to discussions, yet this proposed wording would explicitly treat them differently to talk pages.
I think the whole INUSE section needs to be restructured anyway. It should cover general issues (such as user pages) only once. instead of covering them separately for Commons and other projects, and not even doing so consistently. The sections on Commons and other projects should cover only those issues that are specific to those sections. Brianjd (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
No reply after a week. And I just saw Special:Diff/813292541. I might have a go at cleaning this up myself, without changing the meaning. Brianjd (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I edited this policy section, then The Squirrel Conspiracy edited it too. Does that resolve this talk page section? Brianjd (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's good now, yeah. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Brianjd, The Squirrel Conspiracy, and Rhododendrites: I'm not entirely happy with the recent rewording (see comparison) of COM:INUSE, particularly for two reasons:

  • I miss the It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope sentence. This is something I often bring up in deletion discussions and decisions when people try to use a Commons deletion request as a loophole if they don't get an image they don't like removed from a Wikipedia article. It should absolutely remain there, in my opinion.
  • I'm not quite sure that "Files that are in use may still be deleted for reasons other than scope" is a good addition. True as it is (it happens mainly for copyright reasons), especially together with the removal of the "we don't overrule other projects" language it could lead to the wrong impression that we now want to delete images in use in other projects more freely than we used to. I would either remove the sentence, or clarify it a bit - maybe add "(mainly for copyright reasons)"?

Gestumblindi (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, the pinging didn't work, so again: @Brianjd, The Squirrel Conspiracy, and Rhododendrites: (all those who participated in the rewording). Gestumblindi (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
PS: As the removal of "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope" wasn't explicitly discussed at all, as far as I can see, I'm going to re-add it for now. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Re. "reasons other than scope": perhaps it'd be easier to describe it from the other direction, e.g. "Files which are in use must still comply with all other Commons policies, such as Commons:Licensing." Omphalographer (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I think that's a very good idea! More opinions? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the sentence "It should be stressed...", and I like Omphalographer's suggested change to the other sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 18:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi, Omphalographer, and Mx. Granger: To respond to the two issues above:
  • Regarding the extra sentence It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.: This is a policy, not an essay; it should be concise. The new wording starts with a more concise (and, in my opinion, clearer!) way of saying the same thing: A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope. I don’t see how that could be misunderstood, and I don’t see how the extra sentence clarifies anything.
  • Files that are in use may still be deleted for reasons other than scope. is a reference to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Relevance (or otherwise) of a file being in use; basically, in some cases, users nominate files for deletion per COM:DIGNITY and other users vote to keep them per COM:INUSE (without rebutting the COM:DIGNITY argument). Omphalographer’s suggested wording seems reasonable, but maybe it should say ‘policies and guidelines’.
Brianjd (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I understand that It should be stressed that ... may seem redundant, and I agree that A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope is, in theory, saying the same thing and should suffice, but I still found the explicit "we don't overrule other projects" wording helpful in the past. How about combining the two into one sentence? Like: Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope, therefore a file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose. - Regarding the other sentence, I would be fine with "policies and guidelines". Gestumblindi (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
With the caveat that I seem to be in the minority in wanting to establish that not all use is legitimate use (vandalism, self-promotion, hoaxes, unnoticed violations of local policies, etc.), I wouldn't support a sentence like this which states unequivocally that a file being in use means that the formal position of that project (as opposed to the action of one person) is that the image is useful. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
You or I don't have to agree that it's useful. The real point is, if there's an image illustrating a policy or guideline page like voy:Wikivoyage:Don't tout or voy:Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion, Commoners shouldn't have the right to screw Wikivoyage or whichever other sister site is in question by deleting the image on Commons just because you don't like it for whatever reason. That's the point of COM:INUSE, and as someone whose main wiki is Wikivoyage, we've had quite enough trouble with photos we use being deleted without notice as not usable commercially without having to worry about capricious decisions based on someone merely not liking a photo we're using. Nothing personal to you, of course, but if you read an edge to my remarks, you can probably understand how getting it on the chin from Commons over and over again feels to sister sites. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
merely not liking a photo we're using - Nobody is talking about this, or about use of an image illustrating a policy/guideline page (afaict). — Rhododendrites talk |  03:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, you brought up "unnoticed violations of local policies." That would be a terrible and destructive pretext for deleting any image in use on en.wikivoyage. Instead, you should check on whether we made an exception to a policy by consensus or start your own thread on the relevant article's talk page. More importantly, it's not up to Commons to save sister sites from their own errors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Instead, you should check on whether we made an exception to a policy by consensus or start your own thread on the relevant article's talk page. - Why are you assuming I wouldn't check? In all of the cases I've seen where this would apply, it's just been one person who added a photo and nobody else involved. But ok, say I open a thread on the talk page and, inevitably, nobody replies? What if it's just the one person who added it? In the scenarios I've been talking about, as soon as another person from that project gives it the ok, my objection no longer applies.
Every objection along these lines seems to be "we can't, because you'll do it in bad faith/arbitrarily/with no effort". And it's not "commons" saving a "sister site" it's the consensus among Wikimedians -- all of whom are active on multiple projects -- making an informed judgment call for a rare exception. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Let's say you would do the due diligence to check whether there was a thread on the relevant article's talk page or talk page archive in which a consensus made an exception for a file. I absolutely don't trust some of the high-volume deletion requesters to make those kinds of checks, because they don't always check things like whether a person depicted in a photo or company is notable, whether a file is in use, or how long ago a sculptor or architect died, which requires knowing who they were instead of typing "unknown sculptor". Therefore, I oppose putting exceptions to COM:INUSE into effect that are based on opinions Commoners have about what local policies and guidelines are on other wikis. Moreover, I don't accept the idea that Commoners who would make these decisions are Wikivoyagers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I can see that some of this is upsetting you, but I can also see that at least some of what you are saying makes no sense. "[H]ow long ago a sculptor or architect died" is related to copyright issues, and if you think someone is making mistakes of incorrectly deleting something on a copyright basis, that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. COM:INUSE simply does not apply to deletions on a copyright basis. The discussion here is about deletions on a scope basis.
I'm not going to try to run through what you said point-by-point, but that example suggests to me that this has gotten a bit overwrought.
Yes, most project pages probably should have the same status here as content pages, but I would hope we can agree that (for example) the use of an image once on a help desk or such (which is technically a project page, not a talk page) does not permanently protect it from deletion on a scope basis. Otherwise, since it is generally poor form to edit another user's post on the help desk, any user could render any file deletion-proof by asking about it and showing it, even by asking about whether it should be deleted, which I presume neither of us wants.
It is difficult to state a precise rule here, but if you have a better wording, please suggest it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I do agree that images used in order to ask questions on something like voy:Wikivoyage:Tourist office don't have to be protected forever for that reason. Otherwise, you missed my point. Reread this, please: "I absolutely don't trust some of the high-volume deletion requesters to make those kinds of checks, because" (etc., etc.). If they don't do the other kinds of checks I mentioned, why would it be logical to trust them to go to sister sites and check whether exceptions to local policies were made by consensus there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Ikan Kekek. There is no need to introduce all sorts of vulnerabilities and issues and hostility and time-wasting and policy inconsistency into Commons when you can just leave the files be and move on with your life and spend your time on other things. There are over 110 million files. There is no need whatsoever to delete and spend hours debating single files that are used somewhere like one talk page. Files should also be not removed by the creator or a participant of a DR except probably in cases where it's clear misinformation or vandalism. INUSE is a good policy and it should not be violated but kept as is and adhered to. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

INUSE and Wikidata?

Does INUSE regard use at Wikidata with the same weight as being INUSE on en:WP or other Wikipedias? Wikidata has low traffic, an extremely low open-source 'vigilant eyeballs' effect and negligible standards for notability.

So what should we do with a situation like Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:Redmond and Bluu / d:Q134128114 ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Yes. There is not really a distinction in weight except for illegitimate which mainly refers to vandalism and for uses on user-pages, maintenance-pages and talk-pages (where legitimate uses on users pages with few images and on talk pages should I think also be respected).
  • I think often people have a mindset where they assume there is some kind of big pressure to each and every arguably unsuitable file delete. There isn't. There are over 110 million files on Commons, lots of them being mundane photos of things photographed a million times already. It doesn't matter if a file is kept even if you think it should be deleted or which should be deleted if it wasn't in use just because it's e.g. in use on one talk page. At least when assuming it's not a NSFW or a gore file that can show up in search results, nobody is negatively affected by it and against all odds some may find it useful even if just for better understanding the talk page post.
  • Regarding your specific example, it seems like the right thing to do would be to delete the Wikidata item for which there is a deletion request already anyway, delete the item if it's indeed not notable (there doesn't seem to be one or two sources about the subject), and then deleting the file when it's not in use anymore if people think it's outside the scope in the DR.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
The "Commons keeps it in scope for Wikidata and Wikidata keeps it in scope for Commons" loop from your example is a known issue, which is typically solved by someone that's an admin on both projects (myself or a few others) deleting the content on both projects simultaneously. Virtually every time this comes up (I say "virtually every time" but I can't think of a single counterexample), there is no question that the content is out of scope on both projects except for the existance of the interproject links. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
As in the third point, in such cases the issue would be solved simply by deleting the Wikidata item first. Commons does not keeps things in scope for it so there is no loop. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Prototyperspective. There are some high-volume deletion requesters who nominate Wikipedia articles and images used on them for deletion at the same time. That is irregular because images in use are supposed to be speedily kept if the complaint is only about content or picture quality. Why wouldn't the same thing apply to use on Wikidata?
If people start discounting the relevance of small wikis, it seems to me that the in use policy will increasingly cease to exist and become merely protection for en.wikipedia and a few other Wikipedias. As a Wikivoyager, I certainly wouldn't feel sanguine about a decision to exclude Wikidata from the in use policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm against excluding wikis from COM:INUSE because that's editorialising other projects from Commons.
However, if there is an issue with "Commons keeps it in scope for Wikidata and Wikidata keeps it in scope for Commons" loops, this issue shouldn't be adressed by unitelaterally removing Wikidata from COM:INUSE, but with input from both communities. Commons policy could be ammended to state that COM:INUSE doesn't apply to Wikidata (or other projects) if the only reason to keep the page where the image is in use is that it is in Commons, but it's up to Wikidata community to decide if that's the only reason. The inverse amendment could be done in Wikidata.
Anyway, Wikidata notability policy already states that "Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement (...)". Therefore, there can't be loops between a Commons category and a Wikidata item because Wikidata policy doesn't allow them unless there is a Commons gallery or it can be argued that the item fulfills an structural need. Pere prlpz (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

COM:INUSE and files with issues other than scope

COM:INUSE should not prevent files with issues other than scope from being deleted because of those issues. I think that this is well-established. The main source of confusion has been COM:DIGNITY, which has recently been updated to clarify that it overrides COM:INUSE. However, a current discussion with another user suggests there is still some confusion, so I will update this policy too. Brianjd (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, although others can probably improve the wording. Brianjd (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. I tweaked the wording a little. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Rhododendrites @Brianjd, I hope you are both doing well. Don't you think that COM:INUSE should be updated? because It is frequently used as an argument to keep files that often many times contain completely wrong information, merely perpetuated by a group of users. Or is it solely because certain articles have a very low number of users contributing to them? This is especially the case of many fictional flags and maps created without any reliable sources. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Riad Salih: That’s a scope issue; it should be in a separate discussion. Brianjd (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Brianjd Sure, I just wanted to check if it's worth opening a new discussion about it. Riad Salih (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Riad Salih: Actually, I think #The definition of "legitimate" use regarding COM:NOTUSED sort of covers it. Brianjd (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose any change to the policy that puts the burden of determining truth or accuracy on Commons. What you are describing is a problem for local projects to solve, not us. It is not this project's role and never has been, requires project-specific context, language skills, and subject expertise that members of this project do not necessarily have, and would significantly increase the bandwidth requirements for Commons admins, who are already struggling to manage DR as it is. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Largely concur with @ The Squirrel Conspiracy. We do, of course, at times delete on more or less that basis (entirely made-up flags, very inaccurate maps) but if there is some sister project that appears to want the file just as it is, we shouldn't second-guess them. If you are going to fight it out, fight it out there. On the other hand, it is appropriate to add {{Fact disputed}} or a similar template. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think I've mentioned this before, but it would be helpful to have some mechanism for marking files as "unlikely to have further use, OK to delete once no longer in use". There are some task-specific categories along these lines like Category:Fictional flags of historical entities (to be replaced and deleted), but a more general mechanism would be neat to have - especially for recognizing when those files are no longer in use. Omphalographer (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: do I understand correctly that you are talking about files where the only reason we are keeping them is that they are in use (and would otherwise be out of scope), not suggesting that we should delete files simply for being unlikely to be used on sister projects? - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Correct, although I'm also imagining this encompassing things like decorative images created for specific pages - images that aren't necessarily bad but don't have any utility outside their original context. Omphalographer (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it’s important to consider that files that were once in use may still be valuable for future reuse outside the "wiki-sphere," especially if they were attributed and linked back to Commons. Deleting files immediately after they’re no longer in active use might overlook the potential for them to be repurposed again in the future. Instead of taking a shotgun approach to delete all files no longer in use, we could focus on those that are clearly low-quality or problematic. For files that aren’t obviously bad, it might be better to leave them for now and reconsider them down the line if they come up again. This way, we maintain the balance between cleaning up Commons and recognizing that files could have future relevance. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
@Brianjd @Jmabel @Josve05a @Omphalographer @Rhododendrites @The Squirrel Conspiracy @Krd, Sorry for the tags, just wanted to make sure anyone can kindly follow this discussion.
Is it possible to create an essay here, like they have on Wikipedia?
Right now, maps and flags are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and not int the local projects. So, its logical to have guidelines here.
There are a lot of inaccurate flags and maps, especially on historical topics where active contributors are scarce. These inaccuracies spread easily because of random copying, translating, and sharing without proper fact-checking. This leads to a boomerang effect, where files get shared everywhere and sometimes even end up in books or on other platforms. They are used sometimes in multiple articles and when someone tries to remove them, other contributors undo the edits just because they’re familiar with the file and it's been used elsewhere, while in reality just a random user might upload a fake flag or map, and we’re left to clean up the mess.
The template (Fact disputed) means nothing in reality here because the files are used elsewhere, and the message doesn’t appear there. So what’s the point?
When we try nominate these files for deletion, we keep getting the same argument: "Keep in Use." So, these inaccuracies just keep going around, and we end up having to go through multiple wikis and remove them one by one, which is a huge time-waster just to avoid the "Keep in Use" argument. The banner (“Fact disputed") means nothing in reality here because the files are used elsewhere, and the message doesn’t appear there. So what’s the point?
This process really isn’t sustainable. We already have texts for a lot of things, and it makes sense to apply the same approach here. Contributors should provide sources for the flags and maps they upload here. If they don’t, those files should be deleted. If the files are that needed, they’ll surely be recreated and re-uploaded again. And Sorry, The Squirrel Conspiracy, but a clear guideline will make it easier and clear for all of us and save huge time and not the opposite. Riad Salih (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@Riad Salih: Where on Wikipedia, exactly (preferably the English version)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Essays on Commons are fine.
There is a lot of tricky middle ground in terms of what are legitimate flags. I hope your proposed essay will try to take on some of those subtleties. There are plenty of flags that have currency in the world without being anyone's "official" flag (e.g. many variants on the Pride Flag; the flag substituting the peace symbol for the stars in the American flag). I think those are certainly in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the sort of flag that Riad Salih is calling into question here is the unsourced and/or self-created historical flag, i.e. "here is a flag to represent the ancient Assyrian Empire" or whatnot. In many cases there's little or no evidence that a flag even existed, let alone what it looked like - but wiki editors will often use any alleged flag of an entity to fill in infoboxes and military conflict templates, which can make these images difficult to fully get rid of. Omphalographer (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
but if there is some sister project that appears to want the file just as it is - But there's some disagreement about what constitutes "what the sister project wants". i.e. if I upload a 300x300 blurry smartphone photo of my pet turtle and include it on the page for that species of turtle (with few-to-no other watchers), does automatically shield it from deletion? What if it's not even the correct species? Are the actions of a sole uploader enough to constitute that "the sister project wants it"? Who is helped by a noninterference policy in such cases? While we're talking about weird edge cases, has anyone ever proposed a process by which a file that would be deleted as out of scope if not for a single use in a Wikimedia project is simply uploaded as a local copy on that one project rather than retain it and risk reuse of a misinformative/self-promotional/whatnot image? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The first goal of Commons was and should be to support other projects, mostly Wikipedias. That is, Commons is, first of all, the common repository for Wikipedias. At the beginning of Commons it was a hard job to convince Wikipedia contributors (and specially the biggest one) to use Commons instead of uploading their files locally and we shouldn't undo that work now. For those editors that weren't here a decade and a half ago, the present unwillingness of enwiki to use Wikidata is a good remaider of what happened with Commons back then and what could happen again if Commons refuses to host free images for Wikipedias.
Therefore, if some project wants to use an image, it's not Commons community job to editorialise that project and remove the image. Then, it's fine that COM:INUSE overide all Commons policies when legally possible and most of all, we shouldn't tell projects to upload their files locally if they want to keep them.
That policy is clearly beneficial for most projects and for Commons. If it isn't beneficial for some small projects, we can offer them the option to opt-out of COM:INUSE, but that should be their option. Pere prlpz (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I get your point, but there are now hundreds of wikis, not just enwiki, and Wikimedia Commons has developed a lot in terms of content and users, not like the early days, people are already familiar with it. You're speaking from a very large perspective, while this discussion is specifically about flags and maps. I think it would be helpful to write at least an essay or guide on this topic. Many disruptive users create fake flags and maps, and over time, it becomes a real issue. Things should be made clearer in my opinion. Riad Salih (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
You have a point that things need to be clearer, but the solution can't not include deleting files that some projects might decide keep in use. However, it might include improving communication with projects, easing proposals of changes in small not very active projects, or even placing a big label in images that would be deleted if not in use, warning reusers about their shortcomings. It even might involve removing those files from all categories except for "Category:Worthless files kept just because they are in use".
But the solution can't include editorialising other projects from Commons. Paraphrasing the opening sentence of this thread, COM:INUSE absolutely should prevent used files with any issues from being deleted because of those issues, except for legal issues. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
"the solution can't not include deleting files that some projects might decide keep in use": Based on the rest of your remarks, I think you mean the solution can't include deleting files that some projects keep in use, except when the law requires deletion. Did I miss something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Or probably more like "except when the law would not allow commercial use," since our choice not to accept NC content is one of WMF policy, not law. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks. Fixed.
@Jmabel: Yes, but this thread is about Commons'scope. Any statement in this thread can be understood as with exceptions unrelated to Commons'scope, specially about when it is not possible to publish the media in Commons under a free license for legal or technical reasons, although stating that in every intervention would be a bit cumbersome.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pere prlpz: that was not addressed to you, it was addressed to Ikan Kekek, who wrote "except when the law requires deletion". We definitely will delete NC files even if they are in use on some project, even though no law requires that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in fact I'm painfully aware of that, since loads of files we use on Wikivoyage have been deleted without notice for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not just about flags and maps -- you should create a subsection if you only want comments related to those. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
if some project wants to use an image this misses the point of the post it replies to, which begins with: what is the threshold for deciding that a "project wants to use an image"? Is it one single person adding their own image where, if there were more watchers of that page, it would obviously be removed? Nobody is proposing doing away with INUSE. I'm questioning when Commons is hamstrung and the judgment of a bunch of Wikimedians disregarded due to a single user putting their own photo somewhere. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
If somebody puts their own photo in some project, it can be removed from that project according to the rules of that project, not according to what is decided on Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
So then yes -- INUSE is a suicide pact, and it doesn't matter if it's a good photo, doesn't matter if it even makes sense in the article or is borderline vandalism. If someone puts it on an external project, every user on Commons must suspend their judgment and keep the file, becoming complicit in the degradation of that other project rather than realizing that we are all Wikimedians capable of understanding other projects' expectations and capable of making a decision in rare situations where an inuse file is deleted. Well, color me opposed, but maybe I'd be better off writing an essay. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
If that Commons user wants to avoid damage to that project by editing it (removing an image), then he becomes an editor of that project and therefore can delete the image in that project according to the rules of that project.
Otherwise, it's a giving authority of the users of Commons over the other projects, which is a suicide pact for all projects (and for their use of Commons) even if you think the users of other projects are somewhat stupid or don't care about the degradation of their project.
If it's vandalism, all projects have easy rules to undo vandalism. If it's something else (like a photo that can be replaced), just go to the involved project and propose removal of the image.
Thinking you are right is not a replacement for consensus in any Wikimedia project, even in Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
INUSE is an anti-suicide pact. We start deleting files, Wikimedia projects stop uploading files to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
No Wikimedia project can bypass Wikimedia Commons, especially Wikipedia. Why not conduct a beta test for certain cases to see if it really acts as an anti-sybil pact? Riad Salih (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Because provoking people you're supposed to be working with is bad. I've see people make a big fuss about their images not being moved to Commons, because they've had bad experiences with people deleting their works on Commons for copyright reasons. This is not something that needs to be tested.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikivoyage used to have its own shared repository of images before it forked from Wikitravel, and during a really bad period of deletions without notice of numerous important images used as pagebanners and lead images on en.Wikivoyage articles, we indeed started discussion of reviving wikivoyage.shared or even forking from Wikimedia. Commons is valuable because it is such a large repository of images and has so many good ones, but if there ever comes a time when using photos on Commons becomes more harmful than helpful to sister sites, you would be ill advised to bet against serious talk of forking, if not actual forks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Of course they can bypass Commons, but why would they? The only point I've been making is about extreme cases where a file is evidently problematic and there's reason to doubt whether it's legitimately inuse. As far as my example goes, as soon as anyone other than the uploader comes out to defend the use of a file, the exception is moot (i.e. it should be kept). I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument about this any more than I buy that there will be chaos based on any of the other meanings of "illegitimate use" on this page. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm also against weakening INUSE for many reasons including the above. The thing some people seeing issues like cases where a file is evidently problematic and there's reason to doubt whether it's legitimately inuse could propose that would be more considerate would be specifying some process to have these obviously problematic images removed. Here's what I did for files that were obviously vandalism or just a problem:
  1. Ask on the Wikipedia article talk page about it (in the case it's used on WP) and include the machine translated text so people can read it
  2. Make sure to ping at least one editor of the article such as the one who added it or the main editor of the article
  3. If nobody replies after 2 days or more (depending on how problematic the file is), just remove it
This is also relevant to files that are clearly false (misinfo) which could be spotted and tagged on Commons (see Help:Misinformation). Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Prototyperspective, and if it's obvious vandalism the process can be even faster. Pere prlpz (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I could also imagine an opt-in for small projects so allow Commons admins to decide if the usage of a file is legitimate or not. GPSLeo (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
That's reasonable, although I can't imagine small (or big) communities very willing to take that choice. Pere prlpz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
What Prototyperspective suggests is interesting, but in some cases, the file is kept in small local wikis where there are only a few edits and just 3 or 4 people controlling the entire wiki. They force the image to remain in the articles, and in this way, you can never bypass the "keep in use". The image still exists over time, it will eventually be spread across different wikis, which makes things a bit problematic. Riad Salih (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
If you want to help that wiki to get rid or the file, then edit that wiki - with consensus. I that 3 o 4 people controlling the wiki want to keep it and you don't want to become one of them, it's their bussiness.
If you think that file is damaging Commons in any way, then manage that damage because that is Commons business. For example, if you are worried by a blurry image that can't be deleted because the stubborn editors of some project want to keep it, you just need to put in a category "blurred images kept only because they are in use", remove all other categories and put on its description a big label saying "blurred image. Commons doesn't recommend you to use it".
However, it seems that you are worried by several projects deciding to use an image that you want to prevent them to use. That's not editorializing a single project from Commons. That's trying to editorialize all of them. Pere prlpz (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
The issue mentioned is general, but from my side, the problem that has increasingly become serious over time is the presence of fake flags and misleading maps. Over time, I find it exhausting to constantly monitor this lack of accuracy especially in Arabic wiki.
As for adding labels like "blurred image" or "accuracy disputed," it’s a practical idea. However, I always suggest that such banners should also appear across other projects. Right now, when an image has a warning template on Commons, that warning only shows on the Commons page, it doesn't appear when the image is used in articles. That’s very problematic, because readers won’t take the time to check every image listed in an article by visiting its Commons page.ns. Riad Salih (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
It shouldn't be hard to create a template message to warn other projects using a fake flag and asking for permission to remove it, and to get feedback on whether the fake flag is just used inadvertently or in purpose. If the problem is that community on that project want to use a flag that you see fake and a map that you think it's misleading and other projects want to follow them, that's not a problem to solve by Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone said it’s a problem that Commons itself should fix. I just suggested that writing an essay could help make things a bit clearer and more organized, and maybe find a way for warning templates to also appear in other projects. Otherwise, it’s always handled case by case. These files aren’t always used because the community agreed to use them, I’ve already mentioned the boomerang effect in some cases. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
You can write an essay, but it still won't convince me. COM:INUSE is a fundamental policy, as far as I'm concerned, and I wish we respected sister sites more, not less. Allow me to complain again about how long the bot that's supposed to inform sister sites when images they use are the subject of deletion requests here has ceased operating... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek Is there any template available here to indicate that a page is an essay? Riad Salih (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Riad Salih: unsurprisingly, {{Essay}}. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

COM:INUSE, File deletion reasons

In File in use in another Wikimedia project, it is stated that : Files that are in use may still be deleted for reasons other than scope. Are all these reasons documented elsewhere? If they are not clearly articulated, I believe it would be necessary to provide further clarification. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: mainly copyright issues. Also, obviously, illegal content in terms of child sexual abuse. Possibly upload by a banned user using a sockpuppet, but there we have the option to retain, and probably would if in use elsewhere, that's a real edge case. There might be something else I'm not thinking of, but I'd guess it is pretty rare. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Potentially COM:PIP as well, although it'd depend on the circumstances. Omphalographer (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer thanks! It should be added too to make things clear, don’t you think? Riad Salih (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel don't you think we should clearly mention all the cases to avoid confusion? Riad Salih (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. Regarding child sexual abuse, I have a concern that needs clarification within the scope: are pictures of fully or partially naked children or teenagers, taken without their consent during the colonial period, included? Riad Salih (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Personality rights are expired for these photos (unless they show actual abuse and not just nude people), this is therefore not a legal and only an ethical problem. In the case of Category:Holocaust historical photographs we decided to host such photos to show the atrocities of the Nazis. But this has nothing to do with the INUSE policy. For contemporary photos it is clear that photos taken against the consent of the person depicted are to be deleted (if they are used or not is irrelevant) unless it is a situation has to accept to be photographed. GPSLeo (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
During the colonial era, colonized populations had no recognized personal rights. Many surviving photographs depict naked children and teenagers who were photographed without consent, printed on postcards for commercial sale, and now entered the public domain. I think this is an issue that deserves serious discussion. Riad Salih (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's necessary here. This is meant as a brief reminder that other policies may require images to be deleted, not a complete explanation of those policies. Omphalographer (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
True, I will initiate a discussion at COM:PIP Riad Salih (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. The discussion is here if you’d like to share your thoughts. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"Private image collections"

We need to get rid of the phrase: "Private image collections" as things that are not in scope. Clearly we want some private image collections since we scrape Flickr for them. It is just used as a catchall to harass or delete anything, because it comes from a private image collection. There must be a better way to word what we do not want, without the wording being used as a catchall to delete things people do not like, but are in scope. See for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ella B. Henderson.jpg RAN (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Riad Salih (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest revising "private" to "personal". "Private" simply doesn't make sense here - a collection of images on Commons is pretty clearly public. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Disagree. Of course a private image collection is acceptable as a source, and no one has suggested it is not. The examples that follow that phrase make the intent clear as to what is excluded. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The term private has the problem that it could (especially in translations) be interpreted as confidential and not as personal. We should therefore avoid that term at all. GPSLeo (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with "personal". - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
"Personal" seems clearer to me, too. "Private collection" to me by default means simply that it's owned by a collector and not displayed in a museum, but that's probably because my father was a painter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Agreed Thanks to GPSLeo for having changed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

INUSE: notes on recognizing user pages and sandboxes

I've seen a number of instances where users incorrectly interpreted files as in use because they were used in a user page, talk page, or sandbox in a non-English project (making the nature of the pages not immediately recognizable). This is a particularly common issue for non-Latin projects, as many users on Commons can't read those scripts.

Is there any convenient glossary page (e.g. on Meta) which lists the localized names of:

  • the words "user" and "talk" as used in page namespaces (e.g. in Spanish: "usuario", "discusión")
  • the localized term for "sandbox" (e.g. Spanish: "taller" - literally "workshop")

And, if so, can we add a link to it from the COM:INUSE section? Omphalographer (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a page; it would be a good idea. I wonder if we could draw on data that is somehow available at https://translatewiki.net/, even if not normally exposed for a "fishing expedition" query, rather than having to start from zero. Another way we might get a quick first draft would be to go through the lists of names for Wikidata items like user (Q278368). They might not all get us right away to the correct term. Sadly, items like Wikimedia talk page (Q87358148) do not seem to be widely translated. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it's more useful to use the Wikidata items for the guideline pages, since these contains a lot more translations for the terms needed. For example: Help:Talk pages (Q4592157), Project:User pages (Q4592334) and Project:Sandbox (Q3938). Tvpuppy (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
At least the first two of those seem to have a mix of singular and plural forms. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. I may have been thinking of the table on meta:Wikimedia projects, but it doesn't look like that extends to more specific translations. Unfortunate. Omphalographer (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
At least for namespace names, I think an automatically generated list would be better than a manual one – the translated namespace names are available in phab:source/mediawiki/browse/master/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php and other files in that directory, and it’s also available via the API, we should use either of them. Maybe there could be a gadget that prints the canonical (English) namespace name next to each page name on Special:GlobalUsage. (The gadget should pay attention to handle gendered namespaces, e.g. flag both Usuario: and Usuaria: as user pages on Spanish projects.)
It couldn’t help with “sandbox”, but neither do I think we can help here: the exact wording of the policy is “inactive sandbox and draft pages”; I interpret it so that the name of the page does not matter (I could start a draft of the John Doe article at User:Tacsipacsi/John Doe, User:Tacsipacsi/sandbox, User:Tacsipacsi/draft or User:Tacsipacsi/storage4, the effect would be the same with regards to this policy – if I’m actively working on it, files used by it are in scope, if I’ve abandoned it, then the page doesn’t make them in-scope). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Category:Commons talk archives