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)

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)

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)

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)