Commons:Undeletion requests
Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV
On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.
This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.
Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:
Finding out why a file was deleted
First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.
If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.
Appealing a deletion
Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.
If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:
- You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
- If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
- If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
- If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.
Temporary undeletion
Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.
- if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
- if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.
To assist discussion
Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).
To allow transfer of fair use content to another project
Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.
| Projects that accept fair use |
|---|
* Wikipedia:
als
| ar
| bar
| bn
| be
| be-tarask
| ca
| el
| en
| et
| eo
| fa
| fi
| fr
| frr
| he
| hr
| hy
| id
| is
| it
| ja
| lb
| lt
| lv
| mk
| ms
| pt
| ro
| ru
| sl
| sr
| th
| tr
| tt
| uk
| vi
| zh
| +/−
Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links. |
Adding a request
First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:
- Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
- Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
- In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like
[[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]]is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.) - Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
- State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
- Sign your request using four tilde characters (
~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.
Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.
Closing discussions
In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.
Archives
Current requests
Hi, This should be OK with {{PD-textlogo}}. See also File:Mojang Studios.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mojang logos. Yann (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- In US - obviously. But in Sweden? Pinging @Josve05a, Natuur12, and Fitindia: - users who participated in DR. Any comments? Ankry (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- No strong opinion in favor of undeleting or keeping the files deleted. A file such as File:Mojang Logo.png would be above the threshold of originality in various jurisdictions such as the UK and the Netherlands, but I'm not familiar enough with Swedish copyright law to state wherever this is or isn't the case in Sweden. Jeg stoler på dig Josve. Natuur12 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, this is much simpler than the examples given on COM:Sweden, especially File:A6 logo.png. Yann (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I converted the deletion of the file form a speedy tag to a "deletion discussion", given that I myself was unsure of the TOO status when I was patrolling the speedy category for clear copyvios. However, if I would have to give an opinion of this now, I'm leaning 50/50 on this, given the A6 logo mentioned above, however Swedish courts have historically acknowledged that even modest design choices can qualify for copyright protection, as long as they demonstrate a certain level of creative input. In the case of the Mojang logo, the deliberate arrangement and configuration of the notches (and clear distortion of the letters) appear to meet this criterion, thereby placing it above the threshold of originality as outlined by Swedish copyright law. The case of the "A6" logo, as described in the example, illustrates the determination that the specific design in question did not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. The decision was based on the logo's simplicity and lack of distinctive character, including the ordinary font and basic design elements that did not exhibit significant creative effort. Comparatively, the Mojang logo features specific design elements, namely the notches cut out from the letters, which are not typically found in standard fonts. This unique characteristic of the logo represents a deliberate creative decision, indicating a level of originality that surpasses the simplistic and common features of the "A6" logo. Additionally, the incorporation of distinctive design elements such as the notches contributes to the overall identity and branding of Mojang, serving as a recognizable and distinguishing feature of the company's visual representation (but that's touching more on Trademark than copyright, but still counts for something when it comes to "verkshöjd"). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would you say that it would be wise to apply the COM:PCP in this case and keep the file deleted? Further, should this lead to the deletion of File:Mojang Studios.jpg (the same image, but JPEG) under both PCP and COM:G4? IceWelder [✉] 12:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Both files should be treated the same. I am however very unsure personally on advocating for either deletion or undeletion in this case. However, PCP is a core policy which should always take precedence in case we can't reach a clear determination to keep a file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would you say that it would be wise to apply the COM:PCP in this case and keep the file deleted? Further, should this lead to the deletion of File:Mojang Studios.jpg (the same image, but JPEG) under both PCP and COM:G4? IceWelder [✉] 12:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I converted the deletion of the file form a speedy tag to a "deletion discussion", given that I myself was unsure of the TOO status when I was patrolling the speedy category for clear copyvios. However, if I would have to give an opinion of this now, I'm leaning 50/50 on this, given the A6 logo mentioned above, however Swedish courts have historically acknowledged that even modest design choices can qualify for copyright protection, as long as they demonstrate a certain level of creative input. In the case of the Mojang logo, the deliberate arrangement and configuration of the notches (and clear distortion of the letters) appear to meet this criterion, thereby placing it above the threshold of originality as outlined by Swedish copyright law. The case of the "A6" logo, as described in the example, illustrates the determination that the specific design in question did not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. The decision was based on the logo's simplicity and lack of distinctive character, including the ordinary font and basic design elements that did not exhibit significant creative effort. Comparatively, the Mojang logo features specific design elements, namely the notches cut out from the letters, which are not typically found in standard fonts. This unique characteristic of the logo represents a deliberate creative decision, indicating a level of originality that surpasses the simplistic and common features of the "A6" logo. Additionally, the incorporation of distinctive design elements such as the notches contributes to the overall identity and branding of Mojang, serving as a recognizable and distinguishing feature of the company's visual representation (but that's touching more on Trademark than copyright, but still counts for something when it comes to "verkshöjd"). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: "Stoler" is Norwegian, you Austrian fool. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, this is much simpler than the examples given on COM:Sweden, especially File:A6 logo.png. Yann (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- No strong opinion in favor of undeleting or keeping the files deleted. A file such as File:Mojang Logo.png would be above the threshold of originality in various jurisdictions such as the UK and the Netherlands, but I'm not familiar enough with Swedish copyright law to state wherever this is or isn't the case in Sweden. Jeg stoler på dig Josve. Natuur12 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Please restore the following pages:
- File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.
However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽，如其形式係依法所制訂者，依著作權法第9條，不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- (Should recover revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The official poster of the film 'Romanticc Tukde' has been released on various social media platforms and news publications. The poster is already uploaded on films' IMDb as well. And I belong to the production house of the film, i myself shared the poster on all the social media platforms so the copyright belongs to me only. Have a look here'https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZjkzNmViOTgtMWM1Ni00MGY3LWFlOTQtNDQyMWI2YzkyY2NhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODE5NzE3OTE@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg' . Vg wiki079 (Talk) 07:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are you the artist who created the poster? Does the production house pay you to use the poster? If not, please explain how "the copyright belongs to me only". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Info OP is permanently blocked at English Wikipedia, en:User talk:Vg wiki079. Thuresson (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like this image of PGA golfer John Daly at the American Express Championship in 2005 to be undeleted. The 2005 American Express Championship is the tournament where John Daly lost in a playoff to Tiger Woods, many golf critics considered this tournament to be the one that determined Daly's exemption status on the PGA Tour. The main reason I am requesting undeletion is due to the fact that this image shows John Daly swinging with his driver. As he was the longest driver on the PGA Tour for many years, I consider this image to be special. I believe this image is better than the image that is currently on the John Daly Wikipedia page. So, due to the historical significance, suitability concerning Daly's PGA Tour driving statistics from the past, and Daly's persona, I call for this image to be undeleted.
--Theavgrsnathan (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:John Daly at AmEx Crop.JPG. The image may better illustrate the person, but it doesn't have a free license, our requirement to host an image here. Günther Frager (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Lapsed into public domain last year, in 2022 (sufficient time passed after pma). IllBar 04:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)