We need a vfd process. Image:Krakau01.jpg was copied from Wikipedia commons where it is erroneously tagged with a PD license. We've also had problems with the user who uploaded to WP Commons.
So now what? -- Cjensen 21:44, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
Correct me if I am wrong - but does really the MediaWiki software allow undeleting of images? Text, yes - but images, no. If so, we need to adjust the section regarding undeletion. Riggwelter 12:19, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
Orphaned or unused images are subject to deletion as per our policy. Wikitravel Shared, however, does not show links from other languages to its images. AFAIK, that means we cannot possibly find out whether the image has been placed on any Wikitravel articles or not, unless we do a text search on every language version, which would be riduculous. Is there any easier way to do that or should we consider dropping that rule at least for Shared images? --Ricardo (Rmx) 12:36, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
I'd like to reopen discussion on this bullet point. I agree with what Jani wrote -- I see no reason to remove potentially useful images that aren't currently being used. Having a collection of useful images around is great for when someone starts work on an article and goes to see if there's any images that can be used. LtPowers 07:50, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
"Images that do not help the Wikitravel project"
This differs from the language that is used on the English-language deletion policy page, and it is not obvious to me that it is appropriate here. I'd agree that guilty-until-proven-innocent is the only way we can address copyvios, lack of license agreement, and model release problems, but is it clear that all of the different language projects have the same expectations from the standpoint of utility? I have seen (indeed, have deleted) images that were proposed for deletion simply because they were alleged not to be "useful" -- didn't illustrate anything significant about a destination, couldn't be sensibly incorporated into an article, or were just plain so ugly that you didn't want to use them. However, to assert that because an image isn't helpful on the English-language wiki, it isn't helpful on any of the wikis, strikes me as a stretch. Could someone more familiar with the various language versions than I address this? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Speedy deletion of spam/touting
This already kinda-sorta falls under "blatant copyvio", but I'd like to add an explicit note that blatant spam is also speedily deletable; for example, some random guesthouse in India just uploaded some pictures of a tiger, with 50% of the image covered by the guesthouse's name, address, phone, fax, website, carrier pigeon coordinates, etc. Proposed wording: Jpatokal 05:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
official images uploaded by possibly official tourism accounts
What ought we do with images like Image:Haparanda kyrka 1.jpg? The description says "A picture of the church of Haparanda taken in 2008 by HaparandaTornio Tourist Office", and the uploader is "User:Torhapinfo". Do we assume from the username that the user is an official representative of the tourism office and thus has the rights to release the photo? LtPowers 11:48, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
Senseless messages at talk pages
Within the last two days, we have received two seemingly senseless messages that are exact copies of each other (except the sign) sent by the same IP with the same edit summary to two different talk pages , . I have also noticed the same message (again, with a different sign) sent by the same IP with same edit summary to a talk page of English version of Hitchwiki , another wiki I usually do daily rounds of patrolling. That was posted on the same day the first message appeared here. I'm not sure if this is a bot or not, and what its/his/her intention is. So, I'm not sure if this was ever discussed, how should we act against this kind of behaviour? Speedy them, put up on vfd, leave a note after the message that it's a waste of time trying to send such messages, or just ignore them? Vidimian 16:19, 9 September 2010 (EDT)
Deleting missing revisions
I've got a script that scrapes the site, and on a handful of images it has found missing revisions - the image page shows an upload, but clicking on the file date generally just pulls up a directory listing. Since it doesn't seem to hurt anything I've been deleting and restoring the images, in which case Mediawiki reports that it cannot restore the missing file, and the link to the invalid revision on the image page is removed. If anyone has any concerns about this please say so, but my assumption is that it is a pretty harmless way to clean up bad data. -- Ryan 11:41, 16 December 2011 (EST)