You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Giuseppe Aprile - Buch.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Thanks for uploading File:Giuseppe Aprile - Buch.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
↑This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
↑Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, ich muss dich darauf hinweisen, dass parallel dazu eine ältere englischsprachige Kat. namens Category:Botanical garden of Leipzig University existriert. Es wäre wüschenswert, die beiden aufeinander abzustimmen. Die neue deutsche Kat. sollte mMg nach als Unterkategorie der älteren erscheinen. Sonst wären das Paralleluniversen. --Mfgsu (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo, ich wieder mal mit Bemerkungen. Also ich schaue ab jetzt öfter hier nach. Neulich paar Bilder aus der Galerie von K.-T.-Str. nur vorläufig der Kat. zugeordnet. Mir war klar, dass du die Einordnung in die Unterkategorien richtig vornimmst. Nun zur Sache: Mir sind schon einige Fehler bei der Beschreibung in den Kat. oder bei den Files aufgefallen. Ich will dir ja nicht ins Handwerk pfuschen, aber Einiges muss wohl berichtigt werden. Ich scheue nur den großen Arbeitsaufwand bei der Menge an Daten. Daher kann ich dich nur minimal mit Textkorrekturen unterstützen. Das freilich nur, wenn's dir genehm wäre. Ich möchte dir erstmal Anerkennung zollen für die Heidenarbeit, die du dir aufgebürdet hast. Solong --Mfgsu (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hallo zurück und vielen Dank, sowohl für die Anerkennung, als auch für das Angebot, mich zu unterstützen. Das nehme ich gern an. Beziehst du dich bei den Fehlern auf die Hausnummern in der Wächterstraße? Da muss ich wirklich noch mal ran. Ich hatte da eine falsche Vorstellung, scheint mir, als ich davon ausging, dass es wie in der K-T nummeriert ist. Du könntest das gern schon verbessern, sonst mache ich das, wenn ich die neu eingestellten alten Ansichtskarten auch noch in die Kategorie der einzelnen abgebildeten Villen einbinde. Dazu muss ich aber erst noch die Einzelheiten finden. Ich bin leider jetzt auch im Urlaub fernab Leipzigs und habe also noch keine Möglichkeit, mir dein empfohlenes Buch zugänglich zu machen, in dem diese Einzelheiten sicher drin stehen, sondern sortiere erstmal das, was ich finde, so gut wie möglich ein. Die Aufarbeitung folgt dann noch. Ich habe auch Neuigkeiten von der ZLB Berlin: nachdem ich angefragt hatte, ob die Info in der ZDB richtig ist, dass sie die Blätter für Architekäutur gescannt vorliegen haben, bekam ich zunächst die Info, dass sie zwar gescannt seien, aber aufgrund von personellen Engpässen zeitnah nicht eingestellt werden können. Wenn ich aber einen Band bräuchte, würde man mir diesen gern zur Verfügung stellen. Nachdem ich nun wieder Band 1 anforderte und bekam und bei der Anfrage danach auf meine Zusammenstellung der schon verfügbaren Bände bei wikisource aufmerksam machte, wurde ich gebeten, Band 1 dort nicht zu veröffentlichen, man würde nun die Blätter für Architektur vorziehen und in Bälde einarbeiten. Das Gute an den ZLB-Scans ist: die Texterkennung scheint super zu funktionieren, wenn nicht sogar gegengelesen worden zu sein, man kann dann also gut im gesamten Bestand nach Leipzig scannen... Also: vielen Dank für deine Hilfe, ich werde dann auch regelmäßig auf deine Bearbeitungen schauen und lernen! Und das meine ich wirklich so, ich fange ja gerade an, die architektonischen Highlights des Leipzigs der Gründerjahre richtig kennenzulernen. --Haendelfan (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ja wahrlich Lpz. ist voller architektonischer Highlights, speziell bei den historistischen Villen der Vergangenheit! Man muss im Hinterkopf haben, dass die Stadt um 1900 als die reichste (die meisten Millionäre - umgerechnet auf heute Milliardäre) und viertgrößte (nach Berlin, Hamburg und Breslau) Stadt des Deutschen Reiches galt. Daher die Bauwut und der oft zitierte "Leipziger Größenwahn". Das zur Einordnung nur am Rande. Ich will's langsam angehen lassen und deine Texte stückweise korrigieren. Ein Problem bei den Beschreibungen - am Bildmaterial habe ich nix auszusetzen - sind hin und wieder Ungenauigkeiten, die offenbar von den unterschiedlichen Quellen herrühren. Um Ordnung in die Sache bringen, führt der Weg über das genannte Buch übers Musikviertel. Wobei da auch noch Lücken zu erkennen sind. Immerhin bringt es einen weiter in der eindeutigen Zuordnung und Lage der Bauten mit Adresse und Hausnummer. Ferner sind da Angaben zu den Wohngebäuden mit Bauherren und Architekten (soweit bekannt) zu finden. Wie ich an anderer Stelle schon sagte, sind die Eckbauten in der Zuordnung problematisch. Das gilt insbesondere für die K.-T.-Str. Dazu hätte ich auch Korrekturbedarf anzumelden - neben anderen und kleineren Dingen in der Beschreibung. Also packen wir's an. Aber gemach und keine Hektik! Wünsche schönen Urlaub noch. Solong --Mfgsu (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
PS: Zur Villa Meyer in der WP hatte ich in der Disk. formale Fehler beanstandet. Wenn du kannst, würde ich gern deinen Standpunkt dazu erfahren. --Mfgsu (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi, ich habe das nicht vergessen. Derzeit bin ich aber mit den Einzelheiten der Bauten in der K-T-Str. befasst. Vielleicht hast du die Sachen ja verfolgt. Ich denke, dass man von Einzelnen zum Allgemeinen kommen muss. Kann noch eine Weile dauern, da eine Änderung in Art. einen ganzen Rattenschwanz von Edits in WP oder bei Commons zur Folge hat. Ich hoffe, dass du mir nicht übel nimmst, wenn ich meine Meinung auf WP-Diskussionseiten klar äußere. Solong --Mfgsu (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo Haendelfan,
mir fiel auf, dass du die o. g. Kategorie direkt in die Hauptkat. Leipzig einsortiert hast. Besser wäre sie wohl in den beiden Unterkategorien "Architecture of Leipzig" und "People of Leipzig" (hier vor dem A). In die Oberkat. sollten nicht so spezielle Cat. eingeordnet werden. Ich hätte es ja ändern können ;-), wollte es dir aber erst mal hier sagen. Viele Grüße --Catatine (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
das ist ein sehr guter vorschlag. bin ich sehr einverstanden damit. ich kenne mich mit den ganzen unterkategorien noch nicht so richtig aus und bin für sinnstiftende hinweise sehr offen!--Haendelfan (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
danke für den Hinweis. Ich hatte das auch schon gesehen, aber wie du sicher siehst, ist das Bild spiegelverkehrt gedruckt worden (siehe die Version mit Bildunterschrift). Ich habe es nur gescannt - und ich habe leider keine Ahnung im Bereich Bildbearbeitung, wie man ein Bild entspiegelt. Wenn du das machen könntest, würde ich mich natürlich freuen.--Haendelfan (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
bei Ortkemper hatte ich nicht nachgesehen.
"man" "könnte" das Bild wahrscheinlich auch selbst herunterladen und dann mit Paint oder so spiegeln und dann wieder zurück
ich bin aber sowieso nur drauf gekommen, weil ich noch ein paar Bilder aus Vivian zu Ricci ua. scannen und hochladen wollte, da bin ich den einfachen Weg gegangen. Bei Vivian steht auch ein anderes Datum. Nächste Baustelle... oder auch nicht... gruß --Goesseln (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Na hallo und ja, das haben wir offensichtlich definitiv. Möglicherweise, aber das kann täuschen, mit einem Fokus auf geographische Objekte und insbesondere Karten bei dir und einem auf Menschen im weitesten Sinne bei mir. Ich sage mir immer: wenn sich einer - wie eben Google oder die UB Heidelberg - die ganze Arbeit machen, die Scans zu erstellen, dann darf das auch erhalten bleiben und schneide deshalb das Wasserzeichen / die Herkunftslegende nicht ab, aber klar kann das dann jeder Nachnutzer gern tun.
Wir scheinen möglicherweise auch eine gemeinsame Herkunft zu teilen: Leipzig hier. Auf jeden Fall nett einen likeminded Uploader kennenzulernen. Für mich sind die hochgeladenen Images übrigens alle Zufallsfunde. Mein Primärbetätigungsfeld ist die Zusammenstellung von digitalen Editionen von Zeitschriften oder die Aufschlüsselung von Serienwerken (Beiträge zur oder Gerade Mayers Miniatur-Bibliothek deutscher Classicer aus dem Bibliographischen Institut und die Besorgung von Scans von Bänden in diesen Zusammenstellungen, die noch fehlen. Selten, aber immer wieder auch die Initiation der Digitalisierung seltener Periodika. Haendelfan (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2024 voting is open!
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2024.
If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.
This is not an unusual mistake, but I'm leaving you this message to help you get this right in the future.
There are several steps to making a deletion request (DR) correctly; among other things you must transclude the deletion into the correct daily DR list, and to notify the page creator and optionally other human (non-bot) editors of the page. By far the easiest way to do all of this correctly is to use the automatic Nominate for deletion or Nominate category for discussion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests and COM:CFD#Starting requests, which takes care of all that using vetted Javascript. If you prefer to add the {{Delete}} template or {{Category for discussion}} template manually, you are required to follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy or the "By hand" portion of COM:CFD#Starting requests, normally collapsed). Again, though, there is no need to follow complex instructions if you use the automatic tools.
Also worth knowing: on Commons, {{Delete}} is not a "speedy delete" request like it is on many other projects; instead, it starts a discussion of whether the file should be deleted. If you think a particular media file really obviously does not belong on Commons, see the instructions at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Common cases that are better handled with a speedy delete than a DR include:
If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo @Haendelfan,
Ich bin gerade auf deinem Upload des Kupferstiches das Johann André zeigen soll gestoßen und habe mich bei der Zuschreibung "nach einer Büste von Daniel Berger" gefragt, ob das sein kann. Vermutlich hast du dies aufgrund der Signatur "D. Berger sculp. [...]" so geschrieben. Aber Daniel Berger war einerseits kein Bildhauer und die Abkürzung sculp. bezieht sich meines Wissens in in Regel auf die Tätigkeiten des Stechens oder auch Gravierens, hat also mit einer Skulptur eher nichts zu tun. In der Wikipedia gibt es auch eine Übersichtliche Liste der lateinischen Signatur-Kürzel, die bei solchen Zuschreibungen hilfreich sein kann.
Falls du Belege hast, dass es doch eine Skulptur von Berger gibt, die als Vorbild diente, dann gerne mit in die Beschreibung, würde mich auch interessieren :)
Ich habe ansonsten die Beschreibung schonmal angepasst, dass Berger eben der Kupferstecher war, und Frisch der Zeichner (wegen "del." Signatur).
Schöne Woche dir! Nylki (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
hallo und vielen Dank für deine Rückmeldung und den wirklich hilfreichen Verweis auf die vorbildliche Aufbereitung der Abkürzungen, die bei diesen alten Stichen vorkommen. Man muss nur wissen, wo man das findet. Insofern wirklich vielen Dank für dein wachsames Auge und den Hinweis auf die Tabelle. Und dass du die Beschreibung des Stiches gleich geändert hast ist große Klasse. So macht Wikipedia bzw hier Commons richtig Spaß und bereichert einen. Danke! Haendelfan (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2025 voting is open!
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
2024 Picture of the Year:Mundari man polishing the horns of one of his Watusi cows using a mixture of cow urine and ash as a ritualistic and protective practice in a temporary cattle camp in Terekeka, South Sudan.
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2025 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the twentieth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just five images to become the Picture of the Year.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of five images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2025.
Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone,
Wikimedia Commons is pleased to finally announce the winners of this year's Picture of the Year 2025 contest! We had some truly incredible finalists to choose from, but the community has spoken.
Here are your top three winning images:
First place: The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area. Attribution: WAFA (Q2915969) / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Second place: Baby cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus) sleeping at Cape cross, Namibia. Attribution: Giles Laurent / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Third place: A gigantic jet photographed from the International Space Station by astronaut Nichole Ayers. Attribution: public domain
You can view the full results and see where all your favorite images placed here: Full 2025 Results
I also want to highlight what an incredible turnout we had. In the second round, we saw a massive jump in both the number of users voting and the total votes cast. We had exactly 13,979 votes cast by 3,509 users! To put that in perspective, last year we had 7,403 votes from 2,837 users. It is amazing to see that level of growth and community engagement.
Thank you to everyone who voted, helped organize, and generally made the contest such a huge success this year!
If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.
This is not the first time you've made this mistake; when you get this wrong, it creates a fair amount of work for other people to clean it up. Please do try to get this right in the future.
There are several steps to making a deletion request (DR) correctly; among other things you must transclude the deletion into the correct daily DR list, and to notify the page creator and optionally other human (non-bot) editors of the page. By far the easiest way to do all of this correctly is to use the automatic Nominate for deletion or Nominate category for discussion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests and COM:CFD#Starting requests, which takes care of all that using vetted Javascript. If you prefer to add the {{Delete}} template or {{Category for discussion}} template manually, you are required to follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy or the "By hand" portion of COM:CFD#Starting requests, normally collapsed). Again, though, there is no need to follow complex instructions if you use the automatic tools.
Also worth knowing: on Commons, {{Delete}} is not a "speedy delete" request like it is on many other projects; instead, it starts a discussion of whether the file should be deleted. If you think a particular media file really obviously does not belong on Commons, see the instructions at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Common cases that are better handled with a speedy delete than a DR include:
own work within 7 days ([[COM:CSD#G7]])
empty category never likely to be used ([[COM:CSD#C2]]).
Common bad reasons people have for making DRs in the first place include:
after renaming a category, trying to delete the resulting redirect in violation of policy COM:CATRED
making a DR for a file where there is already a current DR
trying to delete one's own work within 7 days (use {{G7}} instead)
placing {{Delete}} on the deletion subpage itself, or on a talk page.
Hello @Jeff G.: , I'm very sorry to cause confusion, but to be honest, despite being a teacher of English, I do understand the technical descriptionsm but cannot derive or find how exactly I can e.g. a COM:CSD#G7 request or another. That is the only reason why I keep using the delete option and then fill in the reason why I request deletion in words. Sorry for not understanding the technical specifications. If you just tell me how I can make a request to delete my own works, I will be pleased to follow your request. Shall I write {{ G7 }} only? And if so, do I still give a reason like {{bad name|korrekter Name}} Haendelfan (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
