This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Free software article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Free software was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article almost completly ignores the question of the control by the user. Though this notion must be criticaly important to free software, since the free software definition by the fsf says:
Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.
I'm not one hundred percent fluent in english, so I would not modify the article on my own for now. But I think, the article needs seriously to include this notion of control,to be accurate. -- Pparent ( talk) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am considering shrinking the size of the See also section by only linking to one list of software projects. The one I think we should keep is List of free and open source software packages, and thus remove List of formerly proprietary software, List of free software project directories and List of free software for Web 2.0 Services. What are other people's thoughts on this? Belorn ( talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I added "* Category:Free software lists and comparisons" to the Lists sub-section. This is roughly the same as IRWolfie-'s idea of a Lists of lists about free software.
It might be possible to get a list of the lists added to the Portal, too. Lentower ( talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I find the following sentence bordering on pejorative:
Would it make sense to reword it to something like:
Reason: there is a subtle implication that free software developers are working outside of or on the fringes of the law. The terms of free software are also compatible "with many familiar legal arrangements by which developers are paid". In the former wording "many" could be changed to "some of the". The latter wording takes the reader a little further by mentioning the sorts of services that free software developers might offer to earn a living. - Kim Tucker ( talk) 10:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to explain why these changes are reverted: The reverted intro mentioned "legal rights to source code, that the software's creators have". Well Free Software is not at all about this: Any legal rights can be changed by politics; they are not set in stone. Free Software is about Freedoms of the users, and not about giving them what you believe legal rights of "creators" or authors to be, or what politics will legislate these rights to be. The reverted intro mentioned "These rights are granted independently of whether the author receives any payment for creating the software." Well: the original author still has control how she wishes to distribute the software. She can give it away gratis of request some payment. But the point is: If it really is free software, then she can not stop any users of the software from redistributing it (for gratis or for a fee): She cannot dictate to them how to use it, or with whom to cooperate. The reverted intro mentioned "Although the terms of free software are incompatible with developer compensation arrangements based on intellectual property law, developers may still seek compensation through other arrangements that are compatible." Intellectual property law can be: copyright, trademarkts, patents. What are you talking about? Well let's assume it is in fact any of the 3. None have any terms whatsoever about programmer compensation. Example: copyright only says what can and cannot be done, by someone who receives the work. It has no influence on what fee the author asks in order for someone to receive the work. Furthermore: a lot of free software licences (e.g. GNU GPL) are actually based on copyright law, and thus have real legal leverage. So a lot of free software makes use of copyright fundamentally and then grants very specific exceptions to it, but only if these exceptions protect the user's freedoms. It's still very much copyrighted, and can be distributed for a fee or not. So the quoted reverted sentence had errors regarding "compensation arrangements based on intellectual property law"... What does free software say about compensation: Basically nothing much. It's a side issue: Anyone who has received free software can distribute/redistribute it for any fee, or gratis. You can even choose to re/distribute it to a potential new user, only if you are given 30 bottles of some vintage Schnapps! Or you can choose not to re/distribute it at all. So it's absolutely up to the user, who thus has freedom. Hnfiurgds ( talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You complain that FS is not "about" extending legal rights. I never said it was. Extending these legal rights is, however, the means through which freedom is guaranteed, and that is what my text said. I think that is more helpful to people approaching the subject because it is concrete, as opposed to talking about "software that respects this-or-that" and "putting users first." How is a newcomer supposed to make sense of these phrases? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an agitprop session.
You go on to ask "what I'm talking about" with regard to intellectual property law. Well, I'm citing Stallman, and he's talking about copyright, although he loathes the other stuff as well. So if you want to change to copyright that's fine with regard to the source. However there were points in the history of software licensing when companies considered relying on other forms of intellectual property (e.g. trademark in the case of Java) so why not keep it general? It is no secret that software companies rely on IP law to enforce their software fee structure. Stallman knows it, and I would hope that you do as well, but that isn't required because I'm citing Stallman. Again, this is not an agitprop session. It is an encyclopedia for the purpose of explaining concepts by reference to sources. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA ( talk) 21:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have made another attempt to address my concerns about the opening sentences. I hope you will review it with the usual good faith assumption and respond. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA ( talk) 05:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 31#Free software development, Free software development now redirects to this article. In the discussion it was suggested that a section on development may be appropriate to this article, and that if one is written the redirect should be refined to point to that section. This note is just so you are aware of the suggestion and can consider it. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Hnfiurgds recently reverted dozens of edits that I have recently made to the article, because they do not agree with some changes I made to the lead/intro. I am totally open to collaborating with you, if you want to express your disagreements here, but you should really be careful about only reverting the changes that I made which you actually disagree with (rather than wholesale reverting a bunch of image formatting fixes, article cleanup, etc. along with the sentence they don't like). There is no sense undoing all the work I did over a small quibble about wording in the lead paragraph. Let's work a definition we can all agree upon here, and improve on my work by incorporating it into the current article. That said, I'm not really clear where you are coming from with when you say:
... could you elaborate on what your problem with my changes are? Do you believe that open source code is not critical to providing the freedom to modify software? How would you modify it without source code? --
Mesoderm (
talk) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just came to this page for the first time to learn more about this subject. The intro says:
Free software[1] is computer software that is distributed along with its source code, and is released under terms that guarantee users the freedom to study, adapt/modify, and distribute the software.[2][3][4][5][6]
What confuses me is that these "guarantees" are also provided by putting the programming code into the public domain. Because this intro paragraph implicitly reads as a definition of what free software is, it becomes important to understand how free software is differentiated from public domain software. If these guarantees are all that define free software then the two are indistinguishable. If there is more to the distinction then that ought to be reflected in the intro text. 66.97.209.215 ( talk) 04:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Loads of things wrong:
I hope this gets fixed. I'd dig in, but seeing the recent edits, I expect there would be more discussion than I, unfortunately, have time for this week. Gronky ( talk) 00:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the circumstances in which the term became associated with the definition provided by the FSF should be better emphasized, and the reasons as to why it is important to prioritize it over deducting the meaning of the term from the generic dictionary meanings of "free" and "software". Skl ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(summary: too much repetition. all three paragraphs say that free software is about freedom, and the mechanics of how softwar becomes proprietary are explained twice in the 2nd para and again in the 3rd. To write this intro propery, one has to make a list of what is explained, then group the similar things together, then put those groups of sentences in a logical order.)
Hi,
The intro is very good, but I made a few small changes which I'll explain:
There are still some improvements I think would be worth making, but it takes time to craft a good text, so I'll have to leave it for another day:
. Gronky ( talk) 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm suggesting a move of to a disambiguation page as what I did for moving this article [2], since in English language the term 'free' has two different meanings: and it's possible that some people who type 'free software' and thinking of freeware get redirected to a different article. I have no personal interest on this subject, but I'm much interested in the neutrality of articles in Wikipedia. Ttt74 ( talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Free software →
Free software (FSF definition) – in English language the term 'free' has two different meanings: and it's possible that some people who type 'free software' and thinking of
freeware get redirected to a different article. this article should be better a disambiguation page.
Ttt74 (
talk) 12:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Lovelace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.172.61.109 ( talk) 13:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This article states the following:
"Richard Stallman used the already existing term free software when he launched the GNU Project—a collaborative effort to create a freedom-respecting operating system . . ." [1]
It is my opinion that the context of the term Free Software used in this article from InfoWorld relates directly to the cost of software not the idea of what the free software term describes.
Examples to illustrate my point:
I think this article uses the term "free software" solely to describe gratis software and uses the term "public-domain software" to describe the licensing and freedom aspects of it.
My suggestion is to remove the "already existing term" portion entirely because that source doesn't relate to what the term means. -- RottNKorpse ( talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The text mostly talks about binary kernel modules ("Blobs are usually freely distributable device drivers", "The issue of binary blobs in the Linux kernel and other device drivers motivated") which aren't all that relevant here. The cited advances in blob-free operating systems are mostly related to firmware blobs, not kernel modules. This should probably be cleaned up. -- Phiarc ( talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion I started over at Talk:Free software movement: Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Open-source software movement article.
Please comment there and not here for a centralized discussion. Thank you.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
217.168.211.38 ( talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Since November 2017, it's ALL of them, 100% market share. [3] -- 179.179.163.242 ( talk) 22:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"Free software" is a combination of English words which some people in a specific discussion context use to denote software redistributed under liberal terms in source code form.
If you win a copy of Adobe Illustrator in a raffle, that meets the dictionary definition of "free software".
KazKylheku ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
is here FYI. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Free software article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Free software was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article almost completly ignores the question of the control by the user. Though this notion must be criticaly important to free software, since the free software definition by the fsf says:
Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.
I'm not one hundred percent fluent in english, so I would not modify the article on my own for now. But I think, the article needs seriously to include this notion of control,to be accurate. -- Pparent ( talk) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am considering shrinking the size of the See also section by only linking to one list of software projects. The one I think we should keep is List of free and open source software packages, and thus remove List of formerly proprietary software, List of free software project directories and List of free software for Web 2.0 Services. What are other people's thoughts on this? Belorn ( talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I added "* Category:Free software lists and comparisons" to the Lists sub-section. This is roughly the same as IRWolfie-'s idea of a Lists of lists about free software.
It might be possible to get a list of the lists added to the Portal, too. Lentower ( talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I find the following sentence bordering on pejorative:
Would it make sense to reword it to something like:
Reason: there is a subtle implication that free software developers are working outside of or on the fringes of the law. The terms of free software are also compatible "with many familiar legal arrangements by which developers are paid". In the former wording "many" could be changed to "some of the". The latter wording takes the reader a little further by mentioning the sorts of services that free software developers might offer to earn a living. - Kim Tucker ( talk) 10:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to explain why these changes are reverted: The reverted intro mentioned "legal rights to source code, that the software's creators have". Well Free Software is not at all about this: Any legal rights can be changed by politics; they are not set in stone. Free Software is about Freedoms of the users, and not about giving them what you believe legal rights of "creators" or authors to be, or what politics will legislate these rights to be. The reverted intro mentioned "These rights are granted independently of whether the author receives any payment for creating the software." Well: the original author still has control how she wishes to distribute the software. She can give it away gratis of request some payment. But the point is: If it really is free software, then she can not stop any users of the software from redistributing it (for gratis or for a fee): She cannot dictate to them how to use it, or with whom to cooperate. The reverted intro mentioned "Although the terms of free software are incompatible with developer compensation arrangements based on intellectual property law, developers may still seek compensation through other arrangements that are compatible." Intellectual property law can be: copyright, trademarkts, patents. What are you talking about? Well let's assume it is in fact any of the 3. None have any terms whatsoever about programmer compensation. Example: copyright only says what can and cannot be done, by someone who receives the work. It has no influence on what fee the author asks in order for someone to receive the work. Furthermore: a lot of free software licences (e.g. GNU GPL) are actually based on copyright law, and thus have real legal leverage. So a lot of free software makes use of copyright fundamentally and then grants very specific exceptions to it, but only if these exceptions protect the user's freedoms. It's still very much copyrighted, and can be distributed for a fee or not. So the quoted reverted sentence had errors regarding "compensation arrangements based on intellectual property law"... What does free software say about compensation: Basically nothing much. It's a side issue: Anyone who has received free software can distribute/redistribute it for any fee, or gratis. You can even choose to re/distribute it to a potential new user, only if you are given 30 bottles of some vintage Schnapps! Or you can choose not to re/distribute it at all. So it's absolutely up to the user, who thus has freedom. Hnfiurgds ( talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You complain that FS is not "about" extending legal rights. I never said it was. Extending these legal rights is, however, the means through which freedom is guaranteed, and that is what my text said. I think that is more helpful to people approaching the subject because it is concrete, as opposed to talking about "software that respects this-or-that" and "putting users first." How is a newcomer supposed to make sense of these phrases? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an agitprop session.
You go on to ask "what I'm talking about" with regard to intellectual property law. Well, I'm citing Stallman, and he's talking about copyright, although he loathes the other stuff as well. So if you want to change to copyright that's fine with regard to the source. However there were points in the history of software licensing when companies considered relying on other forms of intellectual property (e.g. trademark in the case of Java) so why not keep it general? It is no secret that software companies rely on IP law to enforce their software fee structure. Stallman knows it, and I would hope that you do as well, but that isn't required because I'm citing Stallman. Again, this is not an agitprop session. It is an encyclopedia for the purpose of explaining concepts by reference to sources. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA ( talk) 21:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have made another attempt to address my concerns about the opening sentences. I hope you will review it with the usual good faith assumption and respond. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA ( talk) 05:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 31#Free software development, Free software development now redirects to this article. In the discussion it was suggested that a section on development may be appropriate to this article, and that if one is written the redirect should be refined to point to that section. This note is just so you are aware of the suggestion and can consider it. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Hnfiurgds recently reverted dozens of edits that I have recently made to the article, because they do not agree with some changes I made to the lead/intro. I am totally open to collaborating with you, if you want to express your disagreements here, but you should really be careful about only reverting the changes that I made which you actually disagree with (rather than wholesale reverting a bunch of image formatting fixes, article cleanup, etc. along with the sentence they don't like). There is no sense undoing all the work I did over a small quibble about wording in the lead paragraph. Let's work a definition we can all agree upon here, and improve on my work by incorporating it into the current article. That said, I'm not really clear where you are coming from with when you say:
... could you elaborate on what your problem with my changes are? Do you believe that open source code is not critical to providing the freedom to modify software? How would you modify it without source code? --
Mesoderm (
talk) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just came to this page for the first time to learn more about this subject. The intro says:
Free software[1] is computer software that is distributed along with its source code, and is released under terms that guarantee users the freedom to study, adapt/modify, and distribute the software.[2][3][4][5][6]
What confuses me is that these "guarantees" are also provided by putting the programming code into the public domain. Because this intro paragraph implicitly reads as a definition of what free software is, it becomes important to understand how free software is differentiated from public domain software. If these guarantees are all that define free software then the two are indistinguishable. If there is more to the distinction then that ought to be reflected in the intro text. 66.97.209.215 ( talk) 04:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Loads of things wrong:
I hope this gets fixed. I'd dig in, but seeing the recent edits, I expect there would be more discussion than I, unfortunately, have time for this week. Gronky ( talk) 00:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the circumstances in which the term became associated with the definition provided by the FSF should be better emphasized, and the reasons as to why it is important to prioritize it over deducting the meaning of the term from the generic dictionary meanings of "free" and "software". Skl ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(summary: too much repetition. all three paragraphs say that free software is about freedom, and the mechanics of how softwar becomes proprietary are explained twice in the 2nd para and again in the 3rd. To write this intro propery, one has to make a list of what is explained, then group the similar things together, then put those groups of sentences in a logical order.)
Hi,
The intro is very good, but I made a few small changes which I'll explain:
There are still some improvements I think would be worth making, but it takes time to craft a good text, so I'll have to leave it for another day:
. Gronky ( talk) 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm suggesting a move of to a disambiguation page as what I did for moving this article [2], since in English language the term 'free' has two different meanings: and it's possible that some people who type 'free software' and thinking of freeware get redirected to a different article. I have no personal interest on this subject, but I'm much interested in the neutrality of articles in Wikipedia. Ttt74 ( talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Free software →
Free software (FSF definition) – in English language the term 'free' has two different meanings: and it's possible that some people who type 'free software' and thinking of
freeware get redirected to a different article. this article should be better a disambiguation page.
Ttt74 (
talk) 12:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Lovelace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.172.61.109 ( talk) 13:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This article states the following:
"Richard Stallman used the already existing term free software when he launched the GNU Project—a collaborative effort to create a freedom-respecting operating system . . ." [1]
It is my opinion that the context of the term Free Software used in this article from InfoWorld relates directly to the cost of software not the idea of what the free software term describes.
Examples to illustrate my point:
I think this article uses the term "free software" solely to describe gratis software and uses the term "public-domain software" to describe the licensing and freedom aspects of it.
My suggestion is to remove the "already existing term" portion entirely because that source doesn't relate to what the term means. -- RottNKorpse ( talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The text mostly talks about binary kernel modules ("Blobs are usually freely distributable device drivers", "The issue of binary blobs in the Linux kernel and other device drivers motivated") which aren't all that relevant here. The cited advances in blob-free operating systems are mostly related to firmware blobs, not kernel modules. This should probably be cleaned up. -- Phiarc ( talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion I started over at Talk:Free software movement: Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Open-source software movement article.
Please comment there and not here for a centralized discussion. Thank you.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
217.168.211.38 ( talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Since November 2017, it's ALL of them, 100% market share. [3] -- 179.179.163.242 ( talk) 22:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"Free software" is a combination of English words which some people in a specific discussion context use to denote software redistributed under liberal terms in source code form.
If you win a copy of Adobe Illustrator in a raffle, that meets the dictionary definition of "free software".
KazKylheku ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
is here FYI. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)