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.
Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.
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.
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.
Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file.
In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed.
The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."
When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived.
When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading").
Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.
Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.
Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:
Although I Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
If the SDSS images were in public domain, what the SDSS license for images would be for? Licensing of something that is already released to PD is poinless and raises a significant doubt as per COM:PCP.
If the images are CC-licensed and not PD, I suggest to request undeletion of images that can be currently found on SDSS site and cannot be reuploaded due to earlier deletion: this way you can identify current source for the deleted images. Unfortunately, most of the above images lack precise information about source; they have {{Own}} or "English Wikipedia" provided as source. Ankry (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry bro, I and @SevenSpheres meant that before SDSS moved to PD, these images are uploaded and deleted due to at that time the things were copyrighted but now as they are under PD these images should be undeleted as they are now not copyrighted and are under PD. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
S o what is the CC-BY license (as mentioned in the initial request) for? Maybe, the "data" applies to numeric data only. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I think he meant about CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see ) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM(t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM(t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images.Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM(t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Then Neutral as I do not know where the text in NOP Slovenia not consisting with the legal act content originates from. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
This interpretation of the law is provided in: Trampuž, Miha (1997) (slovene) Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah: s komentarjem, Gospodarski vestnik. --TadejM(t/p) 19:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:
Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.
Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.
In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.
From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。
I don't believe the Directive can give us any clue about this, considering it's not even a law.
For the post-October 1949 Mainland scenario, the question is "when" did the RoC law expire.
Is the expiration date the proclamation of the PRC in 1949?
Is the expiration date the creation of a Constitution in 1954 (it's 1954?)
Given the non-existence of any copyright law until 1996, was the RoC law the one to consider prior to 1991 (even if 1991 was retroactive)? NOTE: under international law, copyright should never be considered non-existent
Can we agree that at least any work created before 30th September 1949 is under RoC law?
That's why I asked for any court ruling anything on this regard, to have some kind of guidance (I hate when Commons users became judges on Copyright issues, which I believe happens sometimes here) TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on pre- proclamation should be a safe terrain (Proclamation of PRC, 1st October 1949).
Even if I insist on asking if there is any judicial precedent on any kind of court, be it Chinese or international, ruling on this issue. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Still, changing a Constitution means nothing.
Spain have had several regime changes by 1987, and still they used the same XIX century copyright law under all of those different regimes.
Current copyright law in Iran is from the Sha's time.
RoC copyright law the last copyright law in China in the 1950s-1980s. They don't having any kind of copyirght protection or recognition is not an issue of changing the laws, but because of their very specific understanding of Communism. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Indeed, 1950 Conference resolution and 1984 regulations are considered to be valid texts and seminal to copyright in China.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I found some legal base under PRC law:
1950 Publishing Conference Resolution is considered the first legal work where copyright is mentioned (there was an administrative recognition of copyright as something which exists, but there is no term)
1994广电部 608号文 confirms 1950 as the strating point of copyright in China (for films) it states:
现对1949年10月1日至1993年6月30日期间国产电影发行权归属问题作出以下规定
October 1, 1949 (the date of the PRC's founding) is the starting point. Films from this date forward are treated as having 版权 (copyright) from the beginning, and they're considered to have copyright because they had distribution rights (1950 Resolution, which was for books).
There a alot of nuances on this law, but at least we can consider 1st October as a safe date for under RoC laws works.
1984 Trial Regulations on the Protection of Book and Periodical Copyright
Just as the (previous discussion on Chinese copyright laws, where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born, I believe we've reached a flaw on Commons guidelines. And probably it's not exclusive of China: because of the URAA restoration policy (Can I advocate for fully deprecate it?), we have policies and guidelines based on current laws, but, de facto, for Commons is 1996 law what is relevant.
In real world, the distinction between 1944 RoC law, 1985 RoC-Taiwan law and 1991 PRC law would be irrelevant, because any work post 1975 is PD under all three laws, making them reduncdant. But because of URAA, in Commons we should look at laws as they were, not as they are.
Article 11: The rights provided in Items (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Article 5 of these Regulations are enjoyed by authors for their entire life. After an author passes away, the lawful successor of the author or the Ministry of Culture Publications Undertakings Management Bureau protects them from infringements.
The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to the lifetime of the author and thirty years after his death. These thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the author; concerning joint works, these thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the last passing away author.
Concerning photographs, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.
Concerning works of which the copyright belongs to bodies, collectives, industrial or undertaking work units or other work units and collective, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.
The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, after the author passes away, will be inherited according to relevant inheritance legislation.
Concerning works already published before these Regulations take effect, of all those that did not yet exceed the periods of the second, third and fourth paragraph of this Article, the copyright holder still enjoys copyright over the remainder of the time period.
So, between 1949 and June 1991 the valid normative was 30 years after publishing/death or author, and the law was only partially retroactive, in the sense it guaranteed 30 years term for works created after 1949, but did not restore any copyright for works having its natural term of 30 expired by then.
Our guidelines in Commons apply 1991 law as a whole because, in a non-URAA world, any of the Chinese laws is irrelevant because anything older than 1975 is PD. But in the URAA world we created in Commons, older copyright laws matter.
What does Chinese 1990-91 copyright law say about restoring copyirght?
Article 59:
This means the works falling in PD under the 1984 directive by June 1991 did not have its copyright restored.
Here there is an authoritative legal commentary on the 1990 Copyright Law with specific examples.
Which also aligns with Berne 18(2): A work that has fallen into the public domain in its source country through the expiry of a previously granted term shall not be protected anew.
And aligns with URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A): restoration applies only to works that entered the public domain due to lack of formalities or lack of treaty relations, not to works that entered the public domain because their copyright term expired.
And the 1984 Regulations granted 30 years terms, not 50. So, Works in PRC created (or whose author died) between 1st October 1949 and 31 December 1960 (maybe 31 May 1961) were PD by the 1991 law (and therefore, had its copyright expired by URAA time).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose because the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) was retroactive and we cannot say that it didn't apply to works created before 1949. The first point follows from the plain meaning of Chapter VI, Article 55, which says that protection is granted to any qualifying work whose "term of protection as specified in this Law [my emphasis] has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law." The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do
This is your interpretation, not the Courts one. The second point follows, and clearly states "the policies and provisions" (notice it does not say law, it does not refer to RoC law, but to 1984 directive and 1950 Publishing resolution) are the ones to follow for anything happening before the 1991 law. The article has two full paragraphs, You cannot read paragraph 1 in isolation. Whatever the Russian Empire template says or the Russian law said is not only irrelevant, but offtopic to this issue.
You cannot apply the first paragraph retroactively to revive works that had already entered the public domain under the 1984 rules, it contradicts the very 1984 rules (article 11), Berne 18(2) and URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A). Indeed, when Russia entered WIPO in 1995 they did it with a public reservation to article 18. They did it because Russian authorities understood that Article 18(2) prohibits reviving works whose term already expired. This is an international treaty, at the end Russia had to accept it. If China had intended to revive works that already fell into the public domain under the 1984 regulations, it would have needed to make a similar declaration or reservation—which it did not.
If a Chinese work's 30-year term under the 1984 regulations expired before June 1, 1991. (Any infringements of copyright and the copyright-related rights or breaches of contract committed prior to the entry into force of 1991 law shall be dealt with under the relevant regulations or policies in force at the time when the act was committed.)
The 1991 law did not revive it (Berne Article 18(2); China Article 59(2))
Therefore, the URAA cannot restore US copyright for that work
@TaronjaSatsuma: The 1991 Copyright Law did, in fact, restore protection to works that had "expired" under the 1984 Trial Regulations. The NPC's official interpretation specifically uses the 1984 Regulations as an example of how the 1991 Law's "life plus 50 years" term overrides the previous "life plus 30 years" term.
比如，1984年文化部颁布的《图书、期刊版权保护试行条例》，规定著作、译作的作者享有的使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终身及其死亡后三十年。假如某翻译者是1950年去世的，按照文化部的条例，该译作的翻译者不再享有使用权和获得报酬权，但依照著作权法，该译作的翻译者仍然享有使用权和获得报酬权。因为著作权法规定，公民的作品，其使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，到1991年6月1日，权利的保护期尚未届满。Translation: For example, the 1984 Regulations stipulated that the term of protection... shall last for the author's lifetime plus 30 years. If a translator died in 1950, they would no longer enjoy these rights under the Ministry of Culture's 1984 Regulations. However, per the 1991 Copyright Law, the translator still enjoys these rights, because the new law extended the term to life plus 50 years, and as of June 1, 1991, this new term had not yet expired by June 1, 1991.
Additionally, Berne 18(2) is inapplicable here because the PRC was not a party to the Berne Convention until 15 October 1992, over a year after the 1991 Law established these protections domestically. Therefore, the domestic restoration of these rights in 1991 did not conflict with any international treaty obligations at that time. Teetrition (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Furthermore, the 1984 Regulations were highly restrictive in scope. Per Article 2, protection was only extended to works "lawfully published by Chinese publishing entities." (我国公民创作的文学、艺术和科学作品，由国家出版单位印制成图书出版或在期刊上发表，其作者依本条例享有版权。) This means many works that did not meet these specific administrative requirements might not have been covered by the 1984 Regulations at all. In such cases, or where the publication status under the 1984 criteria is unclear, we should follow COM:PRE and apply the "life plus 50 years" term as established by the 1991 Law. It would be an enormous evidentiary burden to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards just to argue for a shorter, expired term. Teetrition (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll check everything once I have the time to do so, but it is no be so difficult to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards: pre-1978 works were basically made always by state owned corporations, so: films by Changchun, Shanghai, Bayi, etc; works published by the publishing house making Renmin Ribao, Renmin Huabao, etc; books published by University publishing houses or Sanlian/Joint Publishing (Mainland branch), CCTN/Peking TV and Radio Peking, and many others were obviously "lawfully published" (they were state-owned corporate works). And the facto, any works PD by 1991/1996 would have been published by a state-owned corporation. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
To notice, {{PD-ROC-registered}} has been created. This is true for files made in the RoC, so for Mainland pre-1949 registered works it should work.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
These files and categories were deleted as G10 (advertisement/spam) in the context of a sockpuppet investigation involving the accounts d:User:Pamela drudi and User:Fernandin oig on Wikidata.
All four items were restored with the note «As requested», acknowledging that the original deletions were made in the context of a misunderstanding that has since been resolved.
The logos and categories are now needed to illustrate the restored Wikidata items. The original files were legitimate logos of notable Brazilian companies that operate under federal licences issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Finance.
Hello, just following up on this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Support Images are educationally useful (at least on Wikidata) and should be undeleted if no other problems (such as with copyright) exist. Pinging deleting admin @Lymantria. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I undeleted the one that I deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
@Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy You can review this undelete request regarding my images. If you have any questions, I'm here to help. Thank you. Emigma Sonhador (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
If you disagree with this deletion, please create a new thread for it here, as the deletion reason is unrelated to the other logos' deletion. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The works in the DR cited above are anonymous photographs, so their copyright term was publish plus fifty years. This is a cartoon drawing by Zhang Leping (1910-1992), so it will be under Chinese copyright pma plus 50 or until 1/1/2043. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
per , 著作物用官署學校公司會所或其他法人或團體名義者，其著作權之年限為三十年。(English: For works published under the name of a government agency, school, company, association, or other legal entity or organization, the term of copyright shall be thirty years.), newspaper publications are typically issued under the responsibility and name of the publisher, which may indicate corporate authorship under Article 7. JaydenChao (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
This is a signed drawing, so it was published under the name of its creator, albeit probably in a periodical of some sort. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi! I assume it's a Sanmao comic strip. I came here to bring more difficulty to the decision.
I asked an AI about what @JaydenChao: pointed about, the government work. More especifically, I asked about the author role on the propaganda team of the KMT government:
Zhang Leping joined the "Anti-Japanese Cartoon Propaganda Team" (also known as the "National Salvation Cartoon Propaganda Corps"). This was a government-organized effort, as the corps was placed under the Third Section of the Military Affairs Commission of the GMD government, which was the government of the Republic of China at that time. He was appointed as the deputy leader of this team, working alongside notable figures like Ye Qianyu. The team's mission was to travel across various provinces to use art as a medium for public propaganda against the Japanese invasion
I asked the same AI and said: Zhang worked for "National Salvation Cartoon Propaganda Corps" from August 31 1937 to the spring of 1942, when Zhang Leping's branch of the propaganda corps was disbanded because of a lack of funding. Zhang Leping was noted as being the last member to stick with the team until the end, and continued his anti-Japanese propaganda efforts on his own even after the team dispersed
So, probably 1948 works must be deleted, but now Zhang Leping's works have a more nuanced timeline when it comes to copyright. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jim, remember that even Taiwan claims some rights after 1949 for this work, as it has signatures shown as main topic, the COM:SIG Taiwan applies which told me: Not OK unless very simple, you have to wait for 50 anniversary of the author's passed away date, and still wait for the next 1 January. --~2026-22385-04 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I have re-uploaded the high-definition photos! Will there be any issues with the newly uploaded photos......?II52tt52 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@II52tt52: I hope not, but you may be required to contact the Volunteer Response Team to verify your ownership of the photos
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't know what VRT could achieve here. This is a job for a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazzping plz 21:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I never received any notice of the proposal to delete this image. It is not a personal or low quality image as claimed, but a valuable illustration of Faraday's Law of Induction, which I was about to add to that article--Loodog (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I find it confusing, in that it moves too fast and the timing is wrong -- the field appears before the magnets. We have many images that do a much better job of this. It is, as noted, personal art of a non-contributor. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
1. Well, let me take another look. No... I confirm that the timing is correct. Remember that the electric field swirls are not proportional to the magnetic field but to its time derivative. The B field goes like sin(omega*t) so the E field swirls go like cos(omega*t), which is necessarily ~~pi/4~~ pi/2 ahead of the field in its phase. I can link you the colab code; it's really just taking time derivatives this way so there's not much to mess up.
2. As for the many images, the fact that none of the images linked are animated was what led me to create this gif to illustrate to a student of mine. I just thought that once I'd generated the gif, it would be valuable to a larger audience than just the one person I made it for.
3.On the issue of the image moving too fast, that's a reasonable take and I can easily modify the code to slow it down to whatever pace works better for illustration purposes.
Thank you for your time in reading and considering my response. Loodog (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm also puzzled by your labeling of me as non-contributor. I've been contributing significantly to Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects for 18 years. Loodog (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Timing: The field appears before the arrows, which is backwards. Or perhaps I don't understand your symbolism -- note that I studied electrical engineering at Cornell...
As for Non-contributor -- 23 uploads over 19 years does not look like an active Wikipedian to me. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Explain which field you mean. Maybe you're concerned that the electric field doesn't assume an initial condition of B(t=0)=0. The electrical field will be exactly pi/2 ahead of the magnetic field for reasons described above. When the magnetic field is 0, it is also in maximum change (sin(omega*t) has a max derivative when its value is 0), which is when the electric field will be maximum. Again, I can give you the colab code but the math it implements is very simple: derivative of sin is cos.
There are also some maps which were apparently based on open street map, which is available with a compatible license, deleted again as lacking source:
Pedido de solicitação de exclusão, Wikipédia commons
Solicito a revisão de exclusão para poder adicionar arquivos e poder participar do comitê consultivo da Wikipédia mais negros.
Atenciosamente Amador Madalena Maia de Contagem em Minas Gerais e
Peço deferimento --~2026-28256-09 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I request a review of the deletion so that I can add files and participate in the Wikipedia advisory committee for more Black people. Sincerely, Amador Madalena Maia from Contagem, Minas Gerais, and I request approval.
Also to notice: at this very moment of time there are three open undeletion requests about files from China, which seems to be a tricky country for Commons community. I believe this proves how mistaken was the speedy deletion of a file in use on several wikis. If someone wants to argue for deletion (I must insist, Template:PD-ROC-registered is properly documented and it was the result of months of debate) then they should ask for a regular deletion, or just open a debate about Chinese copyright. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Pinging deleting admin @Túrelio, who stated "The song itself is still protected by copyright, so a recording of it cannot be public domain". Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Opening a DR requires new arguments contesting the deletion reason. Note that per US law no sound recording may be PD before 2067. So we need a free license for any of them. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Any argument is new when no argument was given for the deletion. CSD was not valid in this case, at least some time to defend the file should have been given. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Copyvio is always a valid speedy deletion reason. No arguments provided why the file is free in US. Ankry (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Original copyright lenghth under 1964 RoC copyright law expired before Taiwan's URAA date. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
As mentioned in its DR and its delinker log, the image was COM:INUSE in eu-wiki. COM:INUSE states, "It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". So, even though the image was deleted for being "out of scope", the image was actually "automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope".
Also, I am unsure why the DR was closed early, as it was closed only after a day the DR was created.
Anyways, I agree with @Bedivere that "a human made version can be created", but currently there are no images depicting this specific subject, so I think this image should be undeleted until a better replacement exists. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I remember that file. A couple of years ago someone in Basque Wikipedia experimented with AI in order to create files to illustrate folk creatures of the Basque Culture. File should be restored, as a human made version, even if feasible, it's not so obvious (folk creatures aren't in the wild to take a pic of them). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not a democracy, but the only reason given for deletion is I don't like it, which is not a valid reason for deletion either. Theklan (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that perfectly. I'm also an admin here. What's your rational for deleting the image beyond the fact that you don't like it? Is there any binding copyright law expressed, any project scope policy we should be aware? The only reason given for deletion was that the poster doesn't like it.
Users closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the clearer the explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request.
This is an evident case where all opinions given were to keep the image and you decided on the opposite. Theklan (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Where did I say that I did not like it? I just stated that it is an AI slop, which according to Wikipedia "is digital content made with generative artificial intelligence that is perceived as lacking in effort, quality, or meaning". My assessment as the closing administrator was that this file is of very low quality and its actual educational use is extremely limited, to say the least. Generating a random, unverified AI hallucination to represent a specific mythological creature does not inherently create an educational file just because someone uploaded it. Stating the previous does not mean that "I don't like it," nor did I close it based on personal preference. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
A file being in use on any project does inherently make it an educational file, though, per the policy at COM:INUSE. It also explicitly does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You can't say it's AI slop when it is in use on at least one project. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You think that is random. The Wikipedia using it thinks the opposite. Do you have a background to know if this is random or useful? Theklan (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undeletion request: User:Austarclef
"I understand that my user page was flagged under CSD U3. I intend to use this page strictly for coordinating my contributions to Wikipedia articles and documenting my editorial interests. I will remove any [personal/promotional/non-encyclopedic] content immediately upon restoration to comply with the WP:USERPAGE policy." Austarclef (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
The user may restore the page without any action here, but if it does not conform to our policy requirements, they may be blocked from further edits on Commons. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done No action needed here. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[Hou MingHao jpg fálj [:File:Example.jpg]]
HouMinnghao jpg reinstatment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czumbil00 (talk•contribs) 14:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Recent image, unknown author, no evidence of a free license. No reason given above why restoration is appropriate. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Picture of Indian Celebrities taken by the author Donvikro himself. This site publish this picture without his permission. দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It does not matter for us. If the image was published anywhere prior to its upload to Commons, policy requires that the image copyright holder sends a free license following VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Consider looking at this and this request as well. Not sure whether the closing admin had thoroughly checked the files per COM:URAA. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 19:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I see your point. But as these files were deleted en masse seemly without rigorous procedures (especially in regard to local copyright law as shown in the Village pump discussions), it would be more proper to restore these first, and then re-examine them on a case-by-case basis. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 07:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Also the Relevant discussions at Village pump. I suggest a mass restoration of the grandfathered files, and more examination for files uploaded later. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 19:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the name of the files (the only info we have) at least File:Long march Mao.jpg was unproperly deleted (it was taken during Long March, so RoC copyright term, and thus PD by 1996). It seems clear to me there is an ongoing excess of zeal to delete China-related files. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
This Is Real Picture of Thakur Ladu Singh Ji. I have Copyright of This Picture, So you can add it without any hesitation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwajeet singh solanki (talk•contribs) 05:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If you are the copyright holder (the photographer or photographer's heir), you need to send permission following VRT instructions as you were already notified. Ankry (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
@Vishwajeet singh solanki: Hi, There is an old picture, so it is unlikely that you are the copyright holder. All information you provided are wrong: source, date, author, license, etc. However this might be in the public domain due to age. So it could be undeleted if you provide the proper information. Yann (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment The source is , but no information is provided. Yann (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yet another uncontested speedy deletion of a 91-year old Chinese work. Proposed by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Túrelio under the grounds of "previous consensus": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scenes of City Life (1935).webm.
The film is in PD under both 1944 RoC copyright law and current 1991 PRC copyright law (50 years had passed by 1991, according to article then 59, now 66).
Previous consensus:
Mickey Mouse appears 21 minutes in. Undelete on January 1, 2024 (It was deleted on 25 December 2023). AFAIK, Mickey Mouse is already PD in the US.
Two American songs appear in the background: en:The Maine Stein Song (a 1904 song which seems to be recorded in 1930) and Whistling in the Dark with a registry of also 1930. So, 95-year old songs.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
OpposeTaronjaSatsuma does not seem to understand that copyright lasts a very long time. A 91 year old work can easily have a copyright that lasts another thirty years, although that does not seem to be quite the case here. According to the DR, Whistling in the Dark has a 1931 copyright which was renewed, so it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2027.
I think that in order to restore this, (a) we must wait until 1/1/2027 for the Whistling in the Dark copyright to expire and find out which Mickey Mouse movie this is. He is wearing white gloves, so it is 1929 or later. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Cartoon character at 21st minute of the film.First, @Jameslwoodward: I'd would be very grateful if you abstain of insulting fellow Wikimedians. I've never insulted anyone, AFAIK, and I don't deserve to be mistreated because I have a different point of view than yours.
Secondly, and unless I've missed something in the film, there is no Mickey Mouse at all in this film. There is a cartoony dog character, but this is no Mickey Mouse by any means (and thus, the first deletion was made with mistaken reasons).
About Whistling in the Dark, assuming it's true the reigstry of the very specific version displayed is from 1931, at least I'd be grateful if someone adds "Undelete in 2027" on the file, so it can be used in seven months. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment The character is not Mickey Mouse - multiple animation studios in the era had characters with vaguely similar appearance, including some that predated Mikey - so that should not be a factor. However if the audio was US recordings, they would not yet be PD per Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings as the term is 100 years, which has not yet passed. -- 19:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
But after hearing both versions, I have my doubts: the song as played in the movie (around minute 61) has whistling during the whole play, and also much more harder trumpets. The voice sounds clearly American, but I'm unsure about it being the specific recorded version (at least the one I linked). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Also, I asked Deepseek about this issue (it was about 1990 PRC law, but the reasoning is the same):
The core of your question lies in a key provision of Chinese copyright law. As we discussed, Article 15 (now Article 17 in the 2020 revision) grants a "separate use" right to the creators of a film's components:
"The authors of the script, musical works and other works that are included in a cinematographic work... and can be exploited separately shall be entitled to exercise their copyright independently."
The crucial, legally defined meaning of "separate use" is using the component work completely on its own, detached from the film.
"Separate use" includes:
Publishing the film's script as a standalone book.
Releasing the film's soundtrack on a CD or streaming service.
Licensing the main theme song for a commercial
"Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.
Can someone clarify if this reasoning does apply (or not) here?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Support, with at most the Maine Stein and Whistling song muted (and all other American sound recordings made before 1926 present in-film, if any). As a side note, the PD-recording template says that audio in films does not have to be muted. Does that apply to the use of recordings? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure why sound on a disc record and sound on a film strip would be subject to different rules, but I have no objection to undeletion in whole if the US audio copyright is as stated. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose We have hundreds of images of bikinis. While this isn't a bad picture of the woman, the background is distracting. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose IMO nothing inherently wrong with decent quality consensual photos of women in bikinis (can be in scope for example from documentation of fashions in time and place, in addition to being a culturally popular photographic subject). Out of context, this photo seems mundane but unobjectionable. However the Flickr user seems unreliable. The stream is a mix ranging from "cheesecake" pix like this one to explicitly sexual images, some of which appeared familiar. Doing a couple of reverse image searches, I found some of their photos were elsewhere on the web years before they were uploaded to the Flickr stream. While I didn't find this particular photo in a reverse image search, precaution should prevail due to the source. I shall add the account to the bad Flickr user list. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Deleted as "No license since 21 December 2025". I see in the uploader's talk page that it was tagged as a derivative work. However the church is about 1000 years old . C messier (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (1931).webm. File uploaded by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Abzeronow.
RoC copyright law of 1928 had a 30 years after publication copyright lenghth, RoC copyright law of 1944 included movies and gave 10 years after publication, and PRC's copyright law of 1990 gives 50 year after publication copyright term for movies. PRC 1990 did restore copyright for some works, but explicitally said it did not extend copyright for works whose term had expired. Anyway, the film was PD far before 1990 PRC copyright law was in effect.
It was assumed there was separately exploitable works. That figure exists in 1990 PRC copyright law, which does not apply to this file because the film was PD in the country back then. It was claimed the 1990 versions of PRC copyright did not recognize "work-for-hire", or did not clarify its copyright lenghth. But this movie was created during RoC, and RoC 1928 (and 1944) copyright did indeed recognize work-for-hire. So, undelete.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Also, I asked Deepseek about the Copyright of a movie under Chinese law, and how it relates to the screenwrite, music, etc. seprarate copyrights:
When you broadcast the film as a complete work, your direct legal counterparty is the producer (制片者) of the film. The Copyright Law vests the economic rights to the cinematic work as a whole in the producer. Since the producer's economic rights have expired, the film's status as a public domain (PD) cinematic work is clear. Under this specific act, you are not directly using the script or the musical score as separate, independent entities (whether as a book, a standalone lyric sheet, or an audio track).
This is relevant for this discussion, but also for some other related to Chinese media happening right now. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment File:Arlabosse.png is in use on 28 pages.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Not done No action needed here. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Done obviously in scope. Ankry (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
