Commons talk:Project scope

COM:INUSE, File deletion reasons

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

@Riad Salih: mainly copyright issues. Also, obviously, illegal content in terms of child sexual abuse. Possibly upload by a banned user using a sockpuppet, but there we have the option to retain, and probably would if in use elsewhere, that's a real edge case. There might be something else I'm not thinking of, but I'd guess it is pretty rare. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Potentially COM:PIP as well, although it'd depend on the circumstances. Omphalographer (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer thanks! It should be added too to make things clear, don’t you think? Riad Salih (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel don't you think we should clearly mention all the cases to avoid confusion? Riad Salih (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Regarding child sexual abuse, I have a concern that needs clarification within the scope: are pictures of fully or partially naked children or teenagers, taken without their consent during the colonial period, included? Riad Salih (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Personality rights are expired for these photos (unless they show actual abuse and not just nude people), this is therefore not a legal and only an ethical problem. In the case of Category:Holocaust historical photographs we decided to host such photos to show the atrocities of the Nazis. But this has nothing to do with the INUSE policy. For contemporary photos it is clear that photos taken against the consent of the person depicted are to be deleted (if they are used or not is irrelevant) unless it is a situation has to accept to be photographed. GPSLeo (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

During the colonial era, colonized populations had no recognized personal rights. Many surviving photographs depict naked children and teenagers who were photographed without consent, printed on postcards for commercial sale, and now entered the public domain. I think this is an issue that deserves serious discussion. Riad Salih (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary here. This is meant as a brief reminder that other policies may require images to be deleted, not a complete explanation of those policies. Omphalographer (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

True, I will initiate a discussion at COM:PIP Riad Salih (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. The discussion is here if you’d like to share your thoughts. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"Private image collections"

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

What do you suggest? Riad Salih (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest revising "private" to "personal". "Private" simply doesn't make sense here - a collection of images on Commons is pretty clearly public. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. Of course a private image collection is acceptable as a source, and no one has suggested it is not. The examples that follow that phrase make the intent clear as to what is excluded. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The term private has the problem that it could (especially in translations) be interpreted as confidential and not as personal. We should therefore avoid that term at all. GPSLeo (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with "personal". - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"Personal" seems clearer to me, too. "Private collection" to me by default means simply that it's owned by a collector and not displayed in a museum, but that's probably because my father was a painter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Agreed Thanks to GPSLeo for having changed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

INUSE: notes on recognizing user pages and sandboxes

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

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

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

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

I don't think there is such a page; it would be a good idea. I wonder if we could draw on data that is somehow available at https://translatewiki.net/, even if not normally exposed for a "fishing expedition" query, rather than having to start from zero. Another way we might get a quick first draft would be to go through the lists of names for Wikidata items like user (Q278368). They might not all get us right away to the correct term. Sadly, items like Wikimedia talk page (Q87358148) do not seem to be widely translated. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more useful to use the Wikidata items for the guideline pages, since these contains a lot more translations for the terms needed. For example: Help:Talk pages (Q4592157), Project:User pages (Q4592334) and Project:Sandbox (Q3938). Tvpuppy (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

At least the first two of those seem to have a mix of singular and plural forms. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. I may have been thinking of the table on meta:Wikimedia projects, but it doesn't look like that extends to more specific translations. Unfortunate. Omphalographer (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)