Commons talk:Project scope

"Article bombing" of non-educational images

The rule COM:INUSE has a loophole whereby an uploader can post an image that has no educational value in the Ruritanian version of Wikipedia where it will remain because that versions of Wikipedia has very few editors. Since the image is now in use, the current rules deem it to automatically be of "educational value". The proposed changes make it easier to delete such images. Martinvl (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

What proposed changes? And why does the Ruritanian version of Wikipedia not have the same right to decide what images they shall use as any other Wikipedia?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue at hand is that images can be added by users who are not otherwise active editors on that wiki. And, if there are few editors active on that wiki, those images may stick around even if they're low quality or irrelevant. (I'm also reminded of one wiki which used a template to automatically insert any image whose filename matched the article title - this has led to a number of terrible images being kept as "in use".) Omphalographer (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: could you name that Wiki with that template? I'm curious. And that loophole that Martinvl is describing can be filled in by becoming an editor on the Ruritanian Wiki yourself, courtesy of SUL. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

That was minwikt, by way of its {{Galeri}} template. Omphalographer (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a fascinating situation. My opinion would be that if a wiki is effectively outsourcing the relevance decision to Commons in this way, the resulting use should not count as being "in use" for scope purposes. But also -- and apologies if I'm just stating the obvious -- it looks like that template only resorts to keyword matching (via {{Gambar3}}) if no param is supplied, so it could be overridden by editing the transcluding page to use a more suitable image to illustrate the word. -- Visviva (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well, but unfortunately some Commons DRs have been closed as keep on the grounds that the minwikt template counted as INUSE, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cooking oil.jpg. Omphalographer (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

why does the Ruritanian version of Wikipedia not have the same right - It does have the right to decide, but in practice many projects don't exercise that right or enforce their own policies (i.e. don't a developed image use policy or the volunteers to evaluate whether additions comply with that policy). So we get people who plonk down their pet images/image projects in some obscure, unwatched place. If the project has something like an IUP, I'd say any other Wikimedian could evaluate whether something complies with the local project's IUP. Similar to above. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to decide in name of the Ruritanian Wikidpedia, you can just join, understand the polices - or lack of policies - and delete the images, having in mind the best interest of Ruritanian Wikipedia.

However, I don't see this problem popping up in deletion requests. What I see are Commons editors trying to override in Commons editorial decisions in active Wikipedias because they don't want to host some images in Commons. The last example I remember is about the Basque Wikipedia, which is not enwiki but has an active community.

Commons is not there to editorialize other Wikimedia projects. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, there might well be practical problems in joining the Ruritanian Wikipedia - for example, one might not understand the Ruritanian language or dialect.

Secondly, the Wikipedia in question might not be very active and the promoter of the image has put it there for the very reason that it is difficult to get that Wikipedia to react.

Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Or - as in the case of the minwikt Galeri template - it may not be obvious how to remove an image which is being inserted using templates. Omphalographer (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

First: It would be useful to point examples of that kind of "photobombing" problem. Until now, I've just seen this kind of argument used to try to bypass the editorial decision of quite active Wikipedias.

Second: If you are unable to understand the Rurithanian Wikipedia, how do you know that those images are used in bad faith?

Additionally, if the images are used in bad faith, they are out of scope in Commons, so there's no need to a modify any policy. In fact your proposal would just assume that all images in Rurithanian Wikipedia are used in bath faith.

The minwikt Gallery template might be a different issue - it's not bad faith photobombing but and editorial decision you understably disagree with. However, it's easy to propose to change the template for an actual image in a given page. It can be done in the article talk page, in English or in Google translated local language. If nobody answers, you can just change it in a few days.

Additionally, please keep in mind that if you just delete the image in Commons, you will leave the minwikt page without any image. That is not an improvement over a bad quality image. Hence, it's very right to close the deletion request as kept. Pere prlpz (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

if the images are used in bad faith, they are out of scope in Commons I think what you meant to say was "if the images are used in bad faith, then COM:INUSE does not apply." Clearly, someone could use any image in bad faith, but that doesn't make it out of scope. I could use a portrait of a politician to illustrate an article about a gibbon; the usage is in bad faith, but the photo may be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

you will leave the minwikt page without any image. That is not an improvement over a bad quality image. But it is an improvement over an actively misleading image. We rarely (if ever) delete an image just for low quality if there is no acceptable substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

"if the images are used in bad faith, then COM:INUSE does not apply.": Agreed.

The only example and the case that triggered this discussion is a bad quality image of cooking oil, which is ugly but not misleading. Checking that there is consensus in minwikt to replace it and replacing it would be an improvement. Deleting it without replacing or checking for consensus - as intended - wouldn't be an improvement of the minwikt page. Pere prlpz (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this something that could be handled directly in the DR - acknowledging that the file is in use, but explaining why its use is illegitimate or in bad faith? I feel like the DR is a good place for the community to assess if that usage is legitimate or not, and the closing administrator can make the final decision. I would prefer having the discussion in a DR to the submitter removing the file from use before submitting the DR - it shouldn't be the submitter's unilateral decision as to whether the usage is valid or not. Nor should INUSE be, as someone else once put, a "suicide pact" - a way to keep an image regardless of its legitimate educational value. -Consigned (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

edit proposal

I started an essay to expand on the "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" section, at commons:educational use. While it should receive peer review before being considered anything beyond a draft essay, it is my hope that sooner or later it might be linked from said section by adding

{{see also|COM:educational use}}

between translation markers 37 and 38. Arlo James Barnes 19:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)