User talk:Belbury

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Belbury.

This is the user talk page of Belbury, where you can send messages and comments to Belbury.

• Be polite.
• Be friendly.
• Assume good faith.
• No personal attacks.

• Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Put new text under old text.
• New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
• Click here to start a new topic.

Archives 1, 2

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tstein

Hi. When you are constructing a mass deletion request subpage like the subject, please make it a stub or create it fully before editing the file pages to avoid Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage and redlinks on the file pages; If it is a stub, you can fill in the filenames and transclude later. This goes for all pages, not just file pages. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Would that have made a difference in this case, where I'd just failed to close a bracket in the deletion reason? I'm just using Help:VisualFileChange.js, which populated the same mistake across all the pages. Belbury (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What is Your Problem?

Why are you flagging my uploads? Did I hurt you? Is it a witch hunt? You seem to have a compulsive need to erase and censor others on Wikipedia, and I don't blame you. If I worked in Russia like you, absolutely. ZippoMonkey (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to pretend to be a new user when uploading a personal AI video, you can't be too upset when that's treated as if you were a new user uploading a personal AI video. Belbury (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Trump TACO meme.jpg

File:Trump TACO meme.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump TACO meme.jpg 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!

GrimRob (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to upload a player's photo from Real Madrid's website to their Wikipedia page.

Hello

Hope you're doing well

as the title states, i wanted to upload a player's portrait from Real Madrid's website to their wikipedia page, is that possible? if so, what are the steps. Find the photo link attached below

https://www.realmadrid.com/es-ES/futbol/primer-equipo-femenino/plantilla/paula-comendador-prado

Looking forward to your reply

Regards RookieForLyfe RookieForLyfe (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@RookieForLyfe: I'm afraid this doesn't seem possible, no, the page footer on that site says Real Madrid © 2026 Todos los derechos reservados suggesting that the image is copyrighted. Commons can only use public domain or otherwise free images: see Commons:Licensing. Belbury (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Dog carrying a newspaper.jpg

Thank you for uploading this media, Can you please consider adding a {{Information field|Academic context| [ your reasoning on why Commons should include this media.]}}. It would greatly assist other users and adminstrators, in seeing why the media is in scope. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: An "academic context" information field? I've never heard of that before. Why would that be necessary? Belbury (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've now used on wikt:en:fetch#Verb so it's obviously in scope. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It helps stop the "deletionists", by making assumptions about scope a bit less opaque :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00. Sorry, but I'm not seeing any need to do this.

Is this is your own personal initiative, or is there a guideline on it? Are you asking new users to "consider adding academic context" to simple photos like a dog fetching a newspaper? They're not going to understand your template markup request, or what kind of information you're asking them to provide. Belbury (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Personal so far - but if you want guidelines, feel free to suggest them-I'm open. So far the approaches I am making are yielding results. That new users would not understand what is meant, that IS genuine concern. :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I don't know how you're selecting uploads to approach users about, but I'd have three big concerns that:

1. as I say above, that new users won't understand your instruction about curly bracketed text (even if they click the bluelink, it gives a page of documentation aimed at "advanced template writers" and which doesn't say how to use it)
2. that new and regular users won't (as I didn't) understand what you're asking for when you request "academic context",
3. that new users will be discouraged from uploading further images (especially of "non-academic" feeling subjects) if they think they're required to provide a detailed academic context every time

I think I can see the issue you're trying to address here, but it seems a very small one, maybe a 0.00001% chance that a deletionist in the far future won't understand why a photo was uploaded, and neither will anyone in the discussion, nor the closing admin, and it never got used in any projects in all that time, and it gets deleted because nobody can imagine a COM:EDUSE for it. But in the vast majority of cases, Commons seems to operate fine on the assumption that people have uploaded a picture because they thought we needed a picture of that thing.

It's a big ask to effectively say to a user that they need to pre-emptively defend every upload as if it was already at a deletion request.

I'm not sure Commons has any guidelines on how users should generally write about their uploads, but Commons:First steps/Quality and description doesn't suggest anything to me to say that a general characterisation of an image as "a dog carrying a newspaper" is insufficient and would be better (per your edit) as "a dog carrying a newspaper and this is a typical behaviour of domestic dogs". (Even with that addition, a deletionist could still DR the file arguing that they've personally never heard of this behaviour, and a deletionist admin might delete it if nobody else objected.) Belbury (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Generally I add the field first, before asking the original uploader to (optionally) expand upon the one I added. I don't assume the uploader will even respond though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You make valid points, so for most media, I can pause the approaches. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The other consideration behind this approach, was that when it was more settled, it would be possible to use it on slightly less mainstream content, as a short explanation, of why something was in scope, even though others might not think so, or to head off various kinds of 'generic field/non notable', 'too sensitive',' but we don't need more images of X' type arguments that do arise in DR's :(. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I'd try to get some more discussion on this, if I were you, it may be an unnecessary level of work for both you and the users you're asking to do it.

It'd also be useful to see examples of closed-as-delete DRs where you think a good academic context field could have made a difference. Belbury (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, oh, you're already trying to make a similar thing policy at Commons talk:Project scope#Suggested wording change, aren't you. I hadn't recognised your username. Belbury (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)