![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Is it possible to have Image:Virgin Killer.jpg up without threat of speedy keep? I think not a single IFD of this adressed all the greviences and issues while being dismissed with a wave of WP:NOTCENSORED. Multipule discussions are not always justification for a speedy keep. I want the image to be out for the full peiriod and preferbly with some notice on WP:VPM and/or WP:Community portal and/or WP:NEWS so we can get a large portion of the community. I want it to be set that the discussion will not be speedily kept so we can get a full discussion with all the concerns like WP:BLP, WP:FAIR, and other issues.
We all need to get over this "precedent" mentality and start things as one case. Let's give an IFD a real chance.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Before people start calling for my head over this, please let me explain why I've changed Template:ifd and friends to take image names in the format "Image_name.ext" instead of "Image:Image_name.ext". This needed to be done to make sure that the notice Template:idw spat out linked to the proper section heading rather than trying to link to "#File:Image_name.ext" when the discussion was at "#Image:Image_name.ext". It'll also help avoid using the misleading Image: prefix on non-images.
I made a couple minor tweaks to Twinkle so that it would list images correctly - if there are any other tools I can help fix please let me know. — Remember the dot ( talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious why IfD discussions are closed with the section name outside the "archive box" while AfD discussions are closed with the section name inside the "archive box". Is this because of the closing template used? TfDs seem to go both ways. CfDs seem to keep the section name on the outside.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Reading through the recent IfD nominations, there are a lot of them that are being deleted for being orphaned. These deletions seem relatively uncontroversial, if important, but they tend to clutter up the IfD pages, making it hard to find the deletions for which debate might be worthwhile.
May I suggest instituting an OIfD process, where orphaned images go into their own section or page? That would make it easy to scan for non-orphaned images. Of course, it would be bad faith to unlink and image and then propose deletion as an orphan... but that's the case now. — PyTom ( talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a dumb question: do I need to notify myself in writing of the impending deletion of two pictures I uploaded, when I am the person who listed the pictures on FFD in the first place? Erikeltic ( talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As the "Image:" namespace has been renamed "File:", I propose that the unwieldy (and partially redundant) name "Images and media for deletion" be changed to "Files for deletion" ( WP:FFD). Opinions? — David Levy 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the change. I was going to move all the subpages of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to subpages of Wikipedia:Files for deletion, but it turns out that the move tool has a limit of 100 automatic subpage moves. I could write a bot to move the rest, thoughts? — Remember the dot ( talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to move the templates as well? It would be sensible, even if {{
FfD}}
is a bit wierd at first sight...
Happy‑
melon
23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Can someone please delete File:Projectionist.png and then reupload a new screenshot? The current screenshot features a copyright violation of one of my image (hoverflies mating in midair). I would do this myself however I'm not sure whether I can upload under a fair use copyright tag considering I'm from Australia where we don't have fair use AFAIK... -- Fir0002 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Another editor boldly added files to the things that are eligible for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. I reverted the edits because this is a major change and it impacts policies, guidelines, and how-tos across both the deletion- and file- areas of the Wikipedia: namespace. I'm opening a discussion here so we can decide 1) do we want to do this and 2) what steps do we need to do to make this happen smoothly. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Effectively now we have a prod process—though different from articles. As davidwr says many of the files that would be covered as deleted, non-controversially, through here with no comment and AnomieBOT marking the discussion as closed. The only edits that would be saved is that by AnomieBOT and it does them in batches. I think that if this prod system were implemented then we'd not only get images deleted with even less community scrutiny than at present but have another place to have a backlog. The vast majority of Images nominated for deletion as deleted without comment or controversy and this seems to be working well - Peripitus (Talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Administrator Chick Bowen commented on the FfD process n his close of a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 10. If his conclusions are correct, they should probably be indicated in the head material for the page. They seem more or less on target to me, but I tend to avoid images when I can. Eluchil404 ( talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've written an orphaned-image identifying script on the toolserver, and it has identified over 35,000 self-published images that are orphans. And I mean true orphans - zero links from anywhere in Wikipedia, not even from Talk: or User: pages. Further, I filter out images that are already up for deletion, and images that have been edited in the last week (so as to give new images a chance to be placed).
Most of these images are of no encyclopedic value and should be deleted (you may have noticed my spamming of the IfD list lately), while some should be ported to Commons.
The question now is, how do we deal with it?
-- JaGa talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a thorny problem. I've gone through about the top 20 and it's not clear how to do this in any useful automatic way. A couple I deleted as obvious copyvios, sent quite a few to Ifd as unusable here, tagged a couple as missing permission and some more for moving to commons. I think you should also exclude images already tagged with {{ movetocommons}}. Whatever we do, 35K images is a flood to deal with....no real need to rush anything though. Mass Ifd/tagging will attract the rightful comment that it is too fast for people to check and decide so perhaps many images that should be on commons will be deleted. I reckon a few dedicated volunteers would be a better solution, though it may take a year or more. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A question on the list itself - does the list automatically re-generate itself? The reason I ask is that I randomly pick some offset so I jump right into the middle of the list. I figure there is no point in everyone starting at the beginning. My question comes from, as people get to those sections that I have randomly hit, will they find ones that I have tagged as move to commons and also nominated for deletion or will they be filtered out automatically? Gotta also commend you on that contribution listing beside the name, it has saved a few images that I would have otherwise nominated due to a complete lack of information on the image page. Also as a curiosity, how are these files sorted? -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've come across a lot of orphaned township map images such as these. (Just click on the township in the image's comment to see its replacement.) Do I need to FfD each one individually, or is there some more organized way to go about it? -- JaGa talk 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
When I announced the huge number of orphaned self-published images, we had over 35,000 of them. I just checked - now it's at around 10,000. Where'd they go? Has someone actually dealt with 25,000 images in less than a fortnight? -- JaGa talk 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted some link vandalism at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 24. Is there any chance that this should be replaced by a template? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a mass deletion request going on on Commons regarding whether or not images of cosplayers are derivative works of the copyrighted animated source characters. Your opinion would be welcome, whether or not you have a Commons account. I'm also interested in whether there is precedent for this on En. Dcoetzee 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, just to let you know that I unwittingly broke Template:Ffd2 in an attempt to prepopulate the page name as a deletion reason. It means that the Delete button next to some listings will prefill a deletion reason of "[[Wikipedia:Files". I'll do a proper sandbox test next time. Sorry for any inconvenience. Stifle ( talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Heads up - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If I want to nominate a file for deletion for being a possible fake / being from a likely unreliable source? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Since file redirects now "work", the question of how to handle them here arises (particularly in the context of AnomieBOT); this is clearly incorrect. My thoughts:
The detection of the first versus the second case would work the same as the current discrimination between "nominated a non-existent file" and "file was deleted after nomination". Any comments? Anomie ⚔ 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
duplicate}}
Is [1] an approved change to the wording of {{ duplicate}} ? 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 05:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking through Category:Media renaming requests. Some are useful files that just need to be renamed, such as File:0330280414.jpg... but many others are orphans and seem pretty random, such as File:0856263.jpg or File:100 09242.jpg or File:100 0982.jpg. They're available under a free license, and would be fine if they were on a userpage or something. Some have descriptions enough to say what they are, (like File:20032212.jpg), but they're not in use, and I don't know that they'd ever be good in an article. I guess they could hypothetically be useful, if someone knew more about what they were, but I think they're mostly just taking up space.
It seems there are 2 ways to deal with them. One, I could go through the trouble of renaming them (to what?), and then moving them to Commons. Two, I could nominate them for deletion. It would be a lot of images for deletion, though, if I nominated all renaming-request orphans. It'd certainly be easier than renaming and transferring them all to Commons. How should I handle these? All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the vast majority of {{ PD-Old}} and {{ PD-US}} photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, do the photos on this article violate NFCC#1 (An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above.)? If not, can said photos be donated to the "public domain" by a user, as it's just a photo of copyrighted images? Ryan4314 ( talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hiking.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been requested that "Files for Deletion" regulars weigh in on the debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28#File:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png, since it seems to involve nuances of policy. Any comments, for or against, would be welcome. – Quadell ( talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that all other deletion forums are now at 7 days, should this one now be as well?-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, and updated AnomieBOT's updating of the Old discussions section to match. Anomie ⚔ 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:Time magazine.jpg was listed for deletion by user:Damiens.rf. Four editors voted to keep this image, offering sound reasons for doing so, however the nominator (who I understood cannot vote here) has somehow trumped the unanimous opinion on the grounds of the image being "decorative". I'd be grateful if someone could explain how/why a nomination can trump four strong votes to keep. Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think the above image is unlikely to be PD? SGGH ping! 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to request that an Admin delete older versions of a file, that have been uploaded over top of? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we are currently discussing whether that tea cart is an artwork or just everyday object. If it is declared as art, may you use this in the enWP? We may not in the deWP. If you may not use it, too, I will request a deletion on Commons. -- Thalan ( talk) 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Where are you having this discussion?
I think it is art, because:
It’s initially visually attractive, but quickly starts to look impractical. To much care has gone into its design for a simple device, then leaving too many unsatisfying features. You can make a cart out of ready to use parts, or buy one that is perfectly functional more cheaply, in molded plastic. This one doesn’t have barriers to stop the tea falling off the sides. To move it, it either has to scrape, or the user has to awkwardly lift one end, tipping and rolling things, noting as before that there are insufficient barriers. The wheels are a visual feature rather than chosen function. Big wheels make for stability over uneven ground, but the tread of the wheel is virtually non-existent, meaning it is only suitable for very smooth floors, or it will bump about whatever is carried.
But I am not really an artist, so I asked someone more artistic. She said it looks like something from a cartoon; it looks comical. The wheels are stupid, as aren’t very good at helping to move the cart about. It’s art but useless art.
It reminds me of an all wooden bicycle I once saw. Beautiful wood. Nice finish. Probably works, but was never intended to. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There are 90-some images from a site which has been judged to be unreliable. The links were also seen as promotional and have been removed. Unfortunately, it appears that the site is also a copyright violating site, specifically with respect to images. For example, the image File:Ubuntu_on_Windows_-_Firefox_vs_Firefox.png is from this site, so has to have a source link to the site. But if you click through that source link, the site claims to have released a Windows screenshot into the public domain, something they are not entitled to do. I believe that by having a derived image and linking to the site, Wikipedia is aiding and abetting this copyright violation. What I'm not sure about is, do all images from this site need to be removed, or just the problematic ones? (i.e. ones that depict non-free software but don't acknowledge the software vendors interest in the image). Yworo ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:NFCC, the burden of proof is on "users seeking to include or retain content"; this implies that no consensus closes for fair-use images default to delete. However, according to precedent (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 22#File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 18#WbNORTHstand_gallery_470x313.jpg, among many others), no consensus closes for fair-use images default to keep. Question: What should no consensus closes default to? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
FfDs tend already to be quite stacked against users there that want to keep their images:The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus, and what the outcome of it not reaching a consensus is... Policy does not simply state that "the burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image." It says that it is "the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This does not change what happens if there is no consensus about whether they have provided a valid rationale. [3]
Please Note: I have opened a discussion on a separate but related issue on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 43#Clarify NFCC #8. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Default to Delete And how can anyone say our Nonfree content is hard to understand. Our Mission statement, our Five pillars all state that our goal is the production of redistributive free content. That background casts the light on our NFCC as to reduce to the absolute minimum of encumbered content to fill our needs. If it can't be demonstrated a consensus exists on the need for the encumbered file, it should be removed. -- M ask? 09:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal NFCC #8 requires that a rationale be provided, it does not require that the rationale be accepted by all editors. I submit that logically therefore once a rationale has been provided, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the rationale is insuffiecient should revert back to those proposing deletion as is usually the case for deletion discussions. If the rationale is trivial then there will be no problem demonstrating that it fails and consensus will be easy to acheive. However when the rationale is arguable then this approach, requiring consensus to delete, will force those proposing deletion to show through the weight of argument that their case has merit. Remember this is only regarding NFCC #8, the image will still need to satisfy all the other criteria and the reverse burden of proof for those criteria will remain. Additionally it should be pointed out that #8 is not a fair use criteria. It is an additional burden imposed by the project upon itself, one which any reasonable editor would support, unfortunately some have been a little over zealous in their interpretation of it, to the detriment of the project in my opinion. - Nick Thorne talk 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Our historical policy is almost assured deletion of NFCC unless a significant rationale is offered and supported by multiple editors. If we consider King of Hearts initial query is answered by Gigs wise response. (No discussion can be closed without consensus) then perhaps we keep policy as is?-- Knulclunk ( talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It should default to keep. A file should be considered important until proven obviously otherwise. -- Rockstone ( talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. FfDs shouldn't result in a no consensus. But the ambiguity in NFCC #8 inevitably leads to that. Make it objective, and we won't be having this discussion anymore. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Note added after archiving. The result of this discussion was called, at least
in one DRV, as follows:
The question at issue is whether no consensus defaults to delete where NFCC-related discussions are concerned. Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate template such as {{ ArticleHistory}} for files. I am attempting to preserve the history of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_11#File:Pokerstars_20051215_Check.jpg at File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg. The WP:FFD was closed as no consensus, but Keegan ( talk · contribs) who is an oversighter deleted the file due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy with notice to me to black out or omit private data. I would like to properly document the history of this file on its page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs)
For those of you who use Twinkle to add image deletion tags to captions, there is a bug that causes the preexisting caption to be hidden, by the addition of a superfluous | mark. This has been reported here, and seems related to this earlier bug report, but has yet to be fixed. This should all go without saying, but 1) the captions are necessary to evaluate the use of the image within the article, often providing commentary or at a minimum, identification; 2) relevant deletion procedure states that the tag should be added to the caption, not replace it; and more fundamentally, 3) there is certainly no valid reason to remove the captions while the images remain within the article, particularly when the removal is not constructive but rather accidental. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Until the bug is fixed, I see only two solutions: either refrain from using Twinkle to tag images, or go back and manually fix the captions in every image you tag with Twinkle. Postdlf ( talk) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is the transclusion for November 4 not working right? Gigs ( talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
On File:Unemploy sj1.gif Twinkle managed to add the FFD template to the file but not the corresponding rationale to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 4. I managed to get entries for File:Old house oakland1.gif on down for the related images, but not on this one. Can some admin delete this image as well. I can restart with another FFD, but on this latest batch and all previous noms there haven't been a response. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Has it been discussed whether or not a date navigation box could be put on the bottom of each daily page similar to the one currently used on the top? Personally, I think it could be slightly helpful. Especially on days when a ton of images get nominated.-- Rockfang ( talk) 09:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think "orphan" is a wrong reason for deletion. What isn't in use now, may be used later. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge? Debresser ( talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Under the name of each file nominated for deletion, there is the phrase "uploaded by [user name] (notify | contribs)". The wikitext for the "notify" link is: "[{{fullurl:User_talk:Dunmanhigh|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]". This link no longer works properly. Can someone knowledgeable fix it? — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I work primarily on US military biographical articles, especially Medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed a huge number of files coming up recommended for deletion by a single user User:Damiens.rf. Upon further review it appears that nearly all of the files that this user is focusiing their attention on belong to one user, User:Marine 69-71. Due to the sheer volume of files that this user has submitted for deletion many of them are being automatically deleted because knowone argues them and given that he is submitting dozens a day I simply don't have the time to go through each and every one of them to argue points for or against. Although there are some that I agree should probably be deleted there are many that I do not. Since it appears to me that this Damiens user is using this file deletion process as a means to attack the Marine 69-71 user I refuse to vote either way on any of them and I recommend that Damiens be limited to files not uploaded by Marine 69-71. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've come across this several times now. Files which come with a fair use rationale are removed from articles with the reason that a free use version must be available, then deleted with a speedy as they're now orphaned. To me this is gaming the system to use speedy and avoid a deletion review. I really think the time has come to come down and say this practise should be stopped. What is the community view on this. Justin talk 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the new edit notice ( Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Files for deletion) containing the list of FFD "common abbreviations" like "AU" or "OR". Yes, non-regulars may need help understanding those, but they need that help when reading the pages, not when editing them. Having the acronyms in the edit notice comes across as if we were officially promoting their use. That seems a step in the wrong direction. In fact, we should be firmly promoting not using them. I for one, after years of active admin service at IFD/FFD, still have to think twice every time I encounter these. They are annoying and useless. If people have difficulties understanding them, the solution is not to offer them cheat sheets. The solution is to get rid of them.
Please let's treat those acronyms as deprecated, and let's remove them from the edit notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This old edit appears to have accidentally removed a series of nominations. I just noticed this after removing a few ifds from images that did not appear in the final version - I first thought the missing ifd links resulted when the nomination process gets interrupted (as happened on Commons sometimes). - 84user ( talk) 06:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion occurring at
WP:VPPR#Time to remove placeholders? which involves this process. Your participation in the discussion there would be helpful.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The instructions currently read "If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2010 February 8}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." This should be made mandatory. An image in use in an article is part of that article's content, and a non-free image has no independent right to exist on WP outside of the articles that use it. There is no "due notice" if those interested in an article are never alerted that elements of its content may be deleted. Those who regularly edit and have watchlisted an article are going to be those most likely able to correct a sourcing issue with an image it uses, or to improve a non-free use rationale. Or, at a minimum, placing a notice in the image caption or on the article's talk page provides prompt notice that its editors need to find a free replacement ASAP.
Notifying the uploader should be considered less important, as no one owns uploaded images, particularly if the image is in use in articles, and there is no guarantee that an uploader will remain active with the project. postdlf ( talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canfield_skeleton.jpg should be replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brady_Canfield_skeleton_start_2.jpg which is an un-photoshopped, higher resolution copy of the original image already on commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.99.121 ( talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As Zorglbot who usually creates the log pages is currently gone, I've created some log pages within the last days. As I can't do this forever, it would certainly be helpful if someone with more time/editing options like AWB or a bot could pre-emptivily create some pages. Just note that {{ subst:ffd log}} won't do it currently, as there's no option to overwrite the day. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
THERE'S A FILE I'D LIKE TO DELETE. MY PHOTO. NO LONGER USED IN AN ARTICLE.
DELETION PROCEDURE IS INSANELY COMPLEX. SO I'M JUST LEAVING IT THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor uploaded a bunch of public domain images (older than 100 years). However he neglected to add a source (they're all from his personal collection) and so they were speedy-deleted when he wasn't looking. Can I just undelete them and add the source, or is there a procedure like DRV that has to be followed? Will Beback talk 01:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Are there any instructions on how to do this? Theleftorium (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is LQ/Low Quality being thrown around like so much flotsam? IT's being applied to images of VGA resolution and higher with no artifacts. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Contradiction about "no consensus" result for FFD about the proper course of action for "no consensus" results here—there seems to be a contradiction between the instructions on this page and the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process. Please contribute to the discussion there if you are interested. — Bkell ( talk) 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's partially in quote form, however at some point, I'll probably convert it to prose. Anyway, comments welcome. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of images being nominated with the rationale: "Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use" or similar. Looking at these images, most of them were likely in use in articles years ago (e.g. 2004, 2005 etc) when Wikipedia was young and better free images were not available. Should we really be deleting these? If someone wants to look back at how an article has progressed over Wikipedia's history, seeing what images were used in old revisions in helpful. It is only because the software does not record that images are in use in old revisions of articles that they appear "orphaned".
If we have the server capacity to keep images used in old revisions of articles, I think we should do so. They form a part of Wikipedia's history. If others agree, could we stop deleting images on this basis please? WJBscribe (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Inform the uploader: What to do if the uploader is no longer active on Wikipedia?
Please, change "If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2010 October 7}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." with "If the image is in use, also add {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2010 October 7}} to the caption(s), and add a notice to the article(s) talk pages." (this should/must be a mandatory requirement.)
IMHO, it would be great if, when a file is deleted, someone goes to edit all articles involved, because those red links in articles in the mainspace are demeaning.
Happy editing! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the entire format for submitting an image for deletion; could I just put the link up and let wiki do the rest?
commons:File:Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2010.jpg
Thank you in advance. ~ A passing person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.55.167 ( talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi I've seen a people changing the format of dates to what they think is correct e.g. from WP:DATESNO. currently we have YYYY Month DD, this doesn't seem to fit with the rest of WP. Is it possible to change the way the subpages are created and maybe a few templates to use DD Month YYYY. I understand this might be a whole HEAP of work so a workaround would be to add redirects to the current format for now so both formats work? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am currently trying to analyse the image uploads for this Contributor Copyright Investigation. The contributor has uploaded several PDF files which contain only images (e.g. File:Roja hatim .pdf or File:Qibla.pdf) and I was wondering if the fact that single images shouldn't really be in PDF format was a suitable criteria for deletion? Boissière ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, why do we have to substitute the {{ Ffd2}} and {{ Ffd2a}} templates? This adds a large chunk of unnecessary code in each file entry on the discussion page. Why not simply transclude? Reh man 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Originally in a talk page: Your original decision should be a sticky note on some important page. Too often in Wikipedia, administrator just do things based on whim. When you put well thought out decisions on a post it board, then gradually administrative decisions can be consistent. Murder articles can also use some fair treatment. People claim "other crap exists" but the more fair and consistent we are, the better it is for Wikipedia. Suggestions? Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, since this appears to be taking the form of "settled case law", as they might say in the legal system. I have no idea where you would go about putting such a "sticky note", but the idea is a good one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Decision explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#Chengdu_J-20.jpg
Aftermath: Despite protest and howls that it should be non-free use, a free use photo was eventually found....a photo of a top secret plane. This should illustrate that free use is often possible, even with top secret things.
Madrid 2020 ( talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, can FFD handle renaming files? File rename requests are currently causing problems at WP:RM (it's out of scope) See discussions at User_talk:Harej#Improper_restoration_of_non-free_content_in_violation_of_policy_by_RM_bot and File_talk:Portrait_of_Edward_James.jpg . 65.94.47.11 ( talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea how to edit the box up top to fix this Rip-Saw ( talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved NW ( Talk) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion →
Wikipedia:Files for discussion — There may be other options.
Japanese knotweed (
talk)
10:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
File:BatmanBBlogo.jpg -- Might this image qualify for deletion based on the resolution (as a non-free logo)? Resolution is an issue about which I have always had some confusion. In part, each person's idea of "low resolution" is somewhat different. It seems like a far overly-needed size yet isn't of crisp quality, but as you know, reducing an uploading over the file name doesn't mean anything; it can be undone. (Oh, and he lies about the resolution in his notes as if trying to hide the fact; his talk page shows several image-related violations over twp years+) — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As some may know, a bot, Zorglbot, up until it was blocked for malfunctioning on March 26, was creating the pages on FFD and adding the date headers. Since the bot's blocking, some people have added the date header, but pages have mostly been going without, which has been causing problems on the main FFD table of contents, unless someone adds the header in manually. I have changed the way FFD's table of contents displays to hide the problem for now, but it should be fixed so that the dates are automatically added to the tops of the log pages. The same problem also appears to have spilled over to PUF as well, as Zorglbot created pages there as well.
As there has been no move to bring Zorglbot back from the dead, we need to find a replacement for this function. Considering the missing bot went unnoticed for two and a half weeks, manually adding headers seems to not be a viable solution. Thus it would seem that we need to find another bot to take this task. Considering that AnomieBOT automatically closes many FFD discussions, it might be worthwhile to reach out to that bot's maintainer to seek approval for that task? What do folks think? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Images that are both tagged as free and non-free cannot exist. An image is either free or non-free. Is there a template for CSD of these or should I start Filling mass IfDs for these files? ΔT The only constant 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The archive sequence is currently a muddle. The oldest archive is in fact Archive 6; then Archives 7, 8 and 9; then Archives 1 to 5; then Archive 10. (This is because there was a page rename, then several years later the archives of the old page were moved to be archives here, but out-of-sequence).
Could someone with the power to move over redirects sort this out, and move them around into chronological order?
Best regards, Jheald ( talk) 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Is FFD able to handle requests for deletion of old file revisions? ATM I have to try and find an admin to do it each time, and was wondering if there was a 'proper' way to do it. If there isn't, I think we should try and implement something into FFD, and update the relevant instructions. Thoughts? Acather96 ( talk) 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the idea of splitting up FFD into Wikipedia:Free files for discussion and Wikipedia:Non-free files for discussion. We don't have to have a formal !vote or anything right now - call this an informal straw poll to see if we can refine our procedures a bit. A problem with FFD is that there are at least three distinctly classes of content that come here:
I think FFD works fairly well with the first ans second group of images, but I think our processes could be refined for the third group. With a separate page, we could focus our time/energy on evaluating the more controversial FFD nominations instead of having to wade through 50 non-controversial ones to find the one that matters. We could also fine-tune the instructions for WP:NFFFD to help users who may not be familiar with our non-free content policies to understand what issues they should be considering when opining whether to keep or remove the image. We could also consider expanding the scope of WP:NFFFD to include discussions about potentially removing a fair use image from one page that it is on, while allowing it to continue to be used elsewhere. (eg, suppose File:JeanLucPicard.jpg is used not only on Jean-Luc Picard, where its use is relatively non-controversial, but also on Patrick Stewart, where its removal was contested. WP:NFFFD would provide a suitable forum for discussing this removal in the light of our non-free content policies, as opposed to the article talk page, which likely attracts little attention from those familiar with the policies.) Any thoughts? -- B ( talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As long as FFD is not flooded I think it is ok to keep everything at the same page. But the suggestion above gave me an idea. We could start a big cleanup of all unused files. I have not checked how many that would be but it could be easily be 10,000 files or it could perhaps be 200,000 files or more.
I bet if we add so many files to FFD it will make the system break down. So if we are going to make a mass cleanup we need a better system to handle that.
I'm also active on Commons and I think it is a bad idea just to move everything to Commons. It should only be moved there if it is realistic that the file can be used for something.
One way is to add a "Category:Unused file for possible deletion" (or whatever) to all the unused files + add a notice to all uploaders with unused files. Then we can all look through the files and move the files we want to keep to "Category:Unused files suggested to move to Commons" (can be done with hotcat). Then a bot can move them or they can be moved manually. After some time (3 months?) we can start delete the remaning files (if they are still unused). Either a mass deletion or add a few hundred files in a "Category:Final chance to save this file as of (date)" and if file is still there in 7 days and is unused it could be deleted. -- MGA73 ( talk) 19:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points:
We already have a tool that lets you view orphan images: http://toolserver.org/~jason/orphaned_images.php. I'm not sure putting the images into categories will accomplish much. Cleaning out orphan images is really pretty slow. Nominating crappy ones for deletion is fast, but a lot of images require some detective work to figure out what they even are. And then you have to move to commons, check the formatting of the bot-generated new description page, and be sure to categorize them correctly at commons so that they're findable there. (Otherwise it's not much better having them there than here.) I think dealing with orphan images is a worthwhile project (I do it myself from time to time), but I don't think there is any viable way to speed up the process because what can be done with automated tools is already done by automated tools. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
The image File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg was nominated for deletion by ShipFan at 16:41 on 23 July 2011. Subsequently, the image was tagged for speedy under CSD F8 (image available on Commons) by SoWhy at 10:06 on 24 July. Admin Alexf—after doing the usual checks, but missing an ongoing deletion discussion on Commons—then deleted the image. I noticed this had happened when someone on Commons used the speedy as an argument in the deletion discussion there, and notified Alexf of the confusion, and he restored the image. So far so good.
However, when Alexf deleted the image, AnomieBOT automatically closed the full deletion discussion here. The net result is that the full deletion discussion never reached a consensus; the image is still tagged as being considered for deletion; but the deletion discussion has been closed.
I am uncertain how to rectify this. I don't want to just remove the ffd tag, and reopening the discussion after it has been closed seems inappropriate. However, since the discussion was closed after less than 24 hours, the community did not have enough time to reach a consensus.
Could someone more familiar with the procedural stuff here advice or, preferably, step in? Thanks. -- Xover ( talk) 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll just chime in to say I've also had a pretty bad experience with the image evaluation process in the July 20-23 period.
I know it is very easy to just look at an image and say "somethings wrong, delete it". But I want you to know-- every image you delete, you get an "F". Every time you hit delete from something other than nonsense, you have failed as an admin.
If copyright infos and rationale aren't up to snuff, FIX IT. Delete first and ask questions later is a lot more convenient for reviewers, I know-- but it pisses off hundreds of editors in the process and tells us not to waste our time trying to help WP.-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This File:J fred muggs-5.jpg film screenshot is about to be deleted under fair use review, but it was copied over a public domain photo with the same name. Can an admin perform a history split? The public domain file could be kept and copied to Commons. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lichfield_Collage.jpg this collage image has no attribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.216.143 ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw a file once that said some image or something was considered for deletion, but it was decided to keep it. I thought I'd put it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernadette_pennies.jpg, which was scheduled but kept. Where's the tag and where do I put it? Thanks... Smarkflea ( talk) 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
So many files are currently nominated for deletion that the parser tags at the bottom of this page can't keep up! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that Fastily has stopped making nominations, which is good. At first, I didn't realize that Xeno had mass-objected, and I spent a bit more time than I would have wanted to, looking at them file-by-file. And you know what? I found some where I agreed with Xeno that they should be kept, and at least one where I agreed with Fastily that it should be deleted. I really cannot imagine anyone going through all of the nominated files and making intelligent decisions about them all. Please let me suggest that someone close all the discussions in which Fastily and Xeno are the only commenters as "no consensus". And I'll extend a shameless invitation to Fastily and Xeno to read WP:AAFFD! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The above thread leads me to propose a change in procedure. As long as I can remember, FFD nominations that get no input from anyone but the nominator are always closed as "delete", even if the rationale is something unrelated to copyright and if the file is unabashedly free. Why don't we say that all nominations must receive at least one "delete" vote when copyright is not an issue? Nyttend ( talk) 03:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that some editors on wiki are taking the bare minimum route and nominating in-use images for deletion without any notice to the talk page of the article where that image is in use. I find this practise to be dishonest, manipulative, and in some ways, taking advantage of the system to get what you want done. The current guideline states:
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2011 September 25}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.
I would like to see this changed to:
If the image is in use in less than five articles (not talk pages or project pages), proper notice must be given at those articles by adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2011 September 25}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.
This would, except in cases where the image is frequently used (in which case cleanup should be done prior to deletion), obligate nominators to make it more visible that an image, currently in use, may disappear tomorrow with no apparent warning. Despite statements otherwise, the editors of the article are the ones most likely to know why it is there and what purpose it serves; tey should have the opportunity to state their opinion before the fact rather than jumping through hoops after it disappears to figure out what happened and where it was discussed.
This of course would be akin to the fact that notification of nominations at Commons are now posted to the article talk pages by a bot (which could also be done here). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this image to help better The New Girl in Town article on 3 June 2011. The image was created by a Selena fan several years ago. The album is believed to be fake, however publications such as the Joe Nick Patoski book (1996) states otherwise. I am an agreement that the article is false, and there is currently a discussion about deleting the article. Aside from that, the image is not a fair use, rather a fan-created image that contains a non-free image of Selena herself as a teen in the mid-1980s. Can this image be nominated for deletion? Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
File:MOJLogo.jpg and File:Virgin.net.GIF have both been missed for deletion. They are tagged for deletion after 25 October and 28 October respectively. Cloudbound ( talk) 02:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I listed a file as a possibly unfree file in error. It really should be subject to a file for deletion, as there was a previous PUF discussion on the same photo. Is it too late to hat the discussion there and relist it here? I'm referring to [4] ScottyBerg ( talk) 06:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a process, or a report, which deals with File talk: pages held locally on Wikipedia even though the file is hosted on commons? For example, what should be done with File talk:NuclideMap stitched small preview.png? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There are 38 "images" in this cat. Do we think that the odds of recovery are now so poor that they should be tidied up and deleted? Ronhjones (Talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There have been FfD nominations (one a now-withdrawn mass nomination [5]) of files from which svg derivative works have been created. Usually these files have been tagged with Template:Vector version available which says that the originals should be kept when attribution is required by the licence. Even for PD files, where attribution is not legally required, it may be necessary or desirable to avoid plagiarism, Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Attributing_media_copied_from_other_sources. Sometimes there is no backlink from the svg and sometimes the original creator is explicitly attributed. On other occasions the backlink is the only attribution. Is there a policy for such deletions? I think each has to be taken on its merits (unless all are kept or copied to Commons). When the svg is on Commons any deletions here should be harmonious with Commons policy. I !voted "delete" here and here but I am already thinking I should change to "comment"! Thincat ( talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) is a 1996 US law that restored copyright to many foreign works that had fallen into the public domain in the US. In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.
For some time, Wikimedia Commons has been accepting images that are copyrighted in the US under the URAA, on the theory that it would be held unconstitutional. Such images were tagged with {{ Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. The English Wikipedia has also borrowed the template and the practice, but I have not yet opened a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia. Dcoetzee ( talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems that a lot of files are getting deleted. Are they from prior to when the uploading of images to WP was tightened up? If not does there need to be a tighter control of image uploading? I don't like editors having to waste valuable wikitime. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I've recently had two complaints about AnomieBOT closing discussions as "Wrong Forum" when someone was wanting to nominate for deletion a locally-existing image description page for a Commons file. True, most of these could be deleted under WP:CSD#F2, but it is within the realm of possibility that such a deletion could be contested.
I propose that we update WP:FFD#What not to list here to specifically recommend {{ db-nofile}} as a first step, and if that is denied to list the page at WP:MFD instead of here since there is no actual file being deleted. I'd then update AnomieBOT to repeat this guidance when appropriate. Anomie ⚔ 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"I'd then update AnomieBOT to repeat this guidance when appropriate."Personally, I don't think a request for deletion of a page that is not a file is appropriate for WP:FFD, even if the page resides in the File namespace. Anomie ⚔ 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the listings page. "July 29" is appearing as the latest date -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
How quickly can files kept by FFD be renominated? The same day it was kept, could it be renominated? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 6#File:Ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia.jpg is still open, but is no longer listed for some reason. Spinning Spark 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Is deletion of pages in TimedText namespace handled at Files for deletion or Miscellany for deletion? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:Dane Blue - More Feeling.ogg.en.srt. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After some recent FFD DRV issues, one aspect that came up was low participation in these. I believe part of this is based on the current advice where, while the file page and uploader notification are mandatory, the notification on article pages that use the image is optional. Given that we are likely dealing with images where the uploader has long and gone, this basically means these notices are falling on deaf ears.
Making the article talk page notification mandatory would at least avoid anyone later saying "but I never knew the image was up for deletion" if they were using it for their article. It would also encourage more participation at FFD which, I believe, many closers would appreciate. (Obviously, orphaned files would not need this). It might be more work on the nominator, but it would help in the long run. -- MASEM ( t) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If we consider the process of first removing an image from a page and then nominating immediately at FFD is "out of process" and improper behavior, then we easily can get a bot to be made that tags FFDs that are non-orphans to drop messages on all talk pages for articles it is presently being used in, making this "mandatory" aspect trivial to do. (Note that I can see cases of where Editor A removes the image, Editor B readds, and then Editor A takes it to FFD to get more input - that's ok. It's if Editor A removes the image, and then there's no intermediate edits that restore the image, before Editor A FFD's it.) -- MASEM ( t) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion related to the "orphaning before FFD" thread above has just started at WP:VPR#Restricting people from orphaning non-free images, unless free replacement is found or person still lives?. Anomie ⚔ 13:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that FFD discussions generally don't seem to attract huge numbers of participants, and deletion of images used in articles can be controversial I think that notifying relevant WikiProjects would be a good idea. Before anyone starts complaining about increased effort, I don't propose to make it mandatory just suggest it as something nominators should consider. The current wording concludes with:
I propose adding the following sentence after that:
The thinking behind this is that it puts the suggestion in the minds of people who haven't thought of it. Certainly when I nominate something I find it frustrating if it doesn't get much attention, and I doubt I'm the only one like this. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
After no objections in two weeks I've now made the proposed addition. [8] Thryduulf ( talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The real issue here with lack of attention is that FFD is 95% "crap to delete" and 5% meaningful discussions. If we were to split out "unused images" from all other nominations, then it may get more eyes on the meaningful discussions. -- B ( talk) 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been much comment above about tracking images that were removed from articles. I have had an idea for how a bot might be able to collate such a list going forwards (but not historically). I have asked about the feasibility of the idea at WP:BOTREQ#Image removal tracker, which any bot programmers here are specifically invited to comment on. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Over at Bot requests, CBM indicates that it would be possible to (if I've understood it correctly) track changes to the list of pages that include media in the category "all non-free media". This obviously would obviously only track non-free media, addressing the anon's comments above. So does anyone think this is an idea worth progressing? Thryduulf ( talk) 12:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So is FFD all about deleting files based on licensing, FUR, copyright, and the like? Or are other reasons valid? "Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project" is pretty vague. What would we do with, say, an image released by company that promotes itself without imparting real information ( cf.)? Or put more broadly, does a file have to meet a reason spelled out here in order to qualify for deletion? Is this the appropriate venue for deleting free images? -- BDD ( talk) 21:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are over 100 non-free images depicting specific episodes of TV series that are currently backlogged and awaiting an admin's decision at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 23. Recently, about a dozen similar nominations were closed as "delete" at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_May_22#File:STMatterofHonor.jpg. In each case, some editors claim that the use of a single image significantly increases understanding of the article, while others disagree. Several editors requested a hold on these deletions pending wider discussion. I'd like to have that discussion.
We all know that WP:NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." And we know that this can be quite subjective. A few editors would interpret this to mean that album covers and book covers should not be hosted on Wikipedia, since (according to this line of thinking) you can fully understand an article about an album or a book without seeing its cover. At the other extreme, in any NFCC#8 discussion you can always find someone who will claim any give image significantly increases their understanding of the topic. Community consensus generally finds a useful middle ground.
There are many Featured Articles on television episodes that show a single non-free image in the main infobox to depict the content of the show in question. Examples include Doomsday (Doctor Who), Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural), Cartman Gets an Anal Probe (South Park), The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson (The Simpsons), Deep Throat (The X-Files episode), and many others. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument to make in deletion discussions, but Featured Articles are not mere "other stuff"; they are "the best Wikipedia has to offer", judged through an exhausting process to remove any flaws before they are promoted. This certainly adds weight to the argument that the omission of such images would be detrimental to a full understanding of the episode. But it is not definitive. On the other hand, recent deletions could indicate a growing consensus that such use is invalid.
It seems to me that there are three ways we can go on this. (1) We can state as a general guideline that we usually assume a single non-free screenshot of a television episode is legitimate in an article on that episode, assuming the content of the image is discussed in the article itself, in the same way that we assume that a single non-free portrait is usually acceptable in a biography of a deceased person when no free images exist, or that we assume that a book cover or album cover is acceptable in an article on a book or album. (2) We can state as a general guideline that non-free images of individual episodes are very rarely acceptable, since repeating characters can be shown in other articles, and any action specific to that episode can nearly always be fully explained in text. (3) We can decline to offer any such simple guideline, and instead we would say that many such images pass NFCC#8 and many others do not. The only way to know is to watch the entire episode, look at the image in question, and decide if that individual image significantly increases the understanding of that particular episode.
So what do we want to do?
See also previous discussions, for example Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 106#Should all screenshots in articles about television episodes be deleted? Its happening now. Have WT:NFC and the relevant wikiprojects been notified of this? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Our non-free content policy is not a single criteria. It is a list of guidelines that also link to other guidelines.
The issue of whether or not a single screenshot from an episode (meaning, each and every episode) should be used cannot be argued against with NFCC#8 as a reasoning for general use of non free screen shots in all episode articles. It is an individual argument against misuse of images with little to no context, not all use. The meaning of the criteria is to allow use if the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Many people who argue against use are forgetting that this is a visual art. Words alone cannot replace the screenshot and a free version is not possible (of a screenshot). Our guideline: Wikipedia:Non-free content is the complete non-free content guideline (Non-free content rationale guidelines are separate). That guideline establishes that screenshots are acceptable use in the section "Acceptable use" (see how that works). WP:NFCI states:
"5. Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question."
So, leave the backlog or have a drive to clear it but don't change our guidelines because some editors feel that NFCC#8 is an excuse, It isn't. That is why we have actual guidelines and not just the criteria.
Does this mean that any screenshot from the episode is acceptable? No. Only if what is being depicted is discussed within the body of the article. Also, there will be individual reasons why a non-free screen shot does not pass other criteria such as NFCC#1, if there is a free image of the filming of the episode. Not uncommon these days.
If it ain't broke...don't fix it, please.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that large numbers of these FfD's are being closed (and the images are being deleted) without a clear consensus. See, for example, File:ST-TNG Firstborn.jpg (at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 23): this discussion was closed as "delete" even though all of the comments favoured keeping the image. Many others on this same page have been deleted even though only one or two comments favoured deletion. In the absence of a general agreement that the (mostly repetitive) arguments for deletion are all spot-on and the (also mostly repetitive) arguments for retention are all completely out to lunch — and given the still-ongoing discussion here with no clear consensus at this time — I believe these deletions may be premature. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
In cases of nominations that are part of a long-running tradition of similar cases, closures need to be made not just based on the vagaries of which voters happen to turn up in each case, but also in light of the long-established principles and standards of how such cases are decided. In this case group, there is indeed such a stable, long-standing consensus, about what counts as a valid argument for this type of situation. In light of this established practice, I discounted those keep votes that were merely procedural ("don't make group nominations"), and those that merely made a blanket non-specific assertion of F8 significance. Long-standing policy consensus has established that there is only one type of argument that can lead to a valid keep result here: somebody needs to explain in specific, concrete terms what aspect the article's content an image serves to illustrate and how the article could be less adequately understood without it. Such an argument has to be stated either in the XfD discussion or in the FUR on the image page. In the absence of such an explicit, individualized keep argument, deletion is the only valid outcome. None of the images in question here had a valid FUR in this sense, and as far as I remember none of them had substantial individual keep arguments in the FFDs. In this situations, there were indeed not just deletable by the FFD rules, but also subject to speedy deletion for lack of valid rationales.
Moreover, in the large majority of these cases, the articles themselves consisted entirely or almost entirely of plot renarration. It is also a long-standing principle in these discussions that an article that lacks well-sourced analytical commentary cannot possibly support a valid case of non-free image use, because such use depends on the presence of critical commentary.
During all this process (since May!) I have not seen that any of the editors involved were going to the articles in question and improving them in order to create a better basis for using an image. In not a single case have I seen that any of the FURs was improved while an image was up for discussion. All the images I deleted recently still had entirely boilerplated non-specific pseudo-FURs that were prima facie invalid.
If any of you wish to salvage any specific image(s) among those I deleted in this batch, please let me know and I'll re-open that discussion; however, I'll expect that a valid individual, specific and concrete keep argument will then be brought forward, that a correct and individualized FUR will be written, and that it will be demonstrated that the article in question is of sufficient quality to support an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Both the current RfC on this page and the above complaint are based on the mistaken assumption that there is a lack of a clear consensus about how such cases ought to be handled. This assumption is false. The existing consensus is manifested in literally hundreds of precedents of previous FFDs, all of which were handled according to a very consistent, stable interpretation of our existing NFCC policy.
In the period between January 2009 and May 2012, i.e. prior to the recent large batches of mass nominations (in May 2012, November 2012 and again in May 2013), there were 174 separate FFD cases regarding TV episode images, i.e. on average about one every week. Of these, only 11 were closed as keep and an additional 7 as "no consensus". The "delete" closures were handled by 18 different admins (40 by Peripitus, 37 by Fastily, 29 by Schuminweb, 21 by Explicit, 5 by Drilnoth, 4 by myself, and 3 or fewer each by Angusmclellan, B, Courcelles, Danger, King of Hearts, Nv8200p, Quadell, Stifle, Skier Dude and Wknight94.)
(There were a total of about 800 additional FFDs in the course of the second half of 2012, mostly as part of large batches. They too resulted in deletions in the large majority of cases.)
During the period prior to May 2012, each of the major FFD-handling admins repeatedly made "delete" closures despite a lack of a clear majority or even in the face of a numeric majority to the contrary. In all cases of "keep" closures, the decisions were based on an argument demonstrating an individual function of an image in supporting critical discussion in the text. No FFD was ever closed as "keep" based merely on arguments of the type we have seen made here by those who supported " #Option 1", regarding a general blanket allowance, legitimacy of a generic "identifying" use or a general assumption of F8 being met as a matter of routine. To be sure, such arguments were quite often raised in the FFDs, but they were always, invariably, overruled. There has been an unwavering consensus in all these closures that there must be an individual, specific justification on a case-by-case basis, that it must involve the image supporting sourced critical commentary in the text, and that a very large proportion of the existing images in older articles are bad and need to be cleaned up.
This is the existing policy consensus. There is no basis for trying to overturn it here.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This RFC has been open for five days, and I'm ready to close it. Thank you so much, everyone, for the terrific response this has merited! Thanks especially to Stefan2's link to a related archived village pump discussion, and to Fut.Perf. for providing voluminous examples of previous decisions.
I opened this RFC because I sometimes close old FFD debates, but I didn't know what the consensus was regarding the 100+ (at the time) open debates on episode screenshots. I could not find any page or group of pages that made clear the consensus on how to treat these images. Through this RFC, thanks to everyone's input, I think the consensus is now clear.
There were equal amounts of support and opposition to the idea of assuming a single screenshot is valid in an episode article, much the way we do for book covers. Although there were valid arguments on both sides, the "oppose" comments were more often well-grounded in a knowledge of Wikipedia policy. There was virtually no support for the idea of assuming a screenshot is invalid, and even less support for the contention that no guideline should exist. It was option 4, contributed by Jheald, that garnered near-unanimous support.
When an admin (such as myself) wants to close a deletion discussion for a TV episode, when determining whether NFCC#8 is fulfilled, the following questions seem useful, based on the discussion above. Is the specific content of the screenshot actually discussed in the body of the article itself? Is that discussion relevant to the rest of the article body? Is the image content discussed in ways that address more than simple plot exposition, but that describe other aspects such as production content or analysis of visual content by critics? If so, then the image likely passes NFCC#8 in an article on the episode. But if the image content is not mentioned in the article body at all, or only in a very cursory way, then the image is unlikely to pass NFCC#8. This seems to be the standard recommended by the community as a whole, and it is the standard I will apply.
(On a personal note, I am pleased that this does not place an insurmountable burden on content creators. Nearly every television episode article could include a valid screenshot, but only if someone wants to do the work of researching which scenes portray notable production details, or which are mentioned by critics, etc., and if that editor is willing to contribute enough to the body of the article to justify the image use. In this way, non-free content can only be kept if enough new free content is created to show that NFCC#8 is met, which seems to me to be a neat way to fulfill Wikipedia's goal of supporting free content.)
When this RFC is archived, it can be a useful resource to point to when anyone has questions about how to handle this sort of situation. Thank you all for participating. – Quadell ( talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Is it possible to have Image:Virgin Killer.jpg up without threat of speedy keep? I think not a single IFD of this adressed all the greviences and issues while being dismissed with a wave of WP:NOTCENSORED. Multipule discussions are not always justification for a speedy keep. I want the image to be out for the full peiriod and preferbly with some notice on WP:VPM and/or WP:Community portal and/or WP:NEWS so we can get a large portion of the community. I want it to be set that the discussion will not be speedily kept so we can get a full discussion with all the concerns like WP:BLP, WP:FAIR, and other issues.
We all need to get over this "precedent" mentality and start things as one case. Let's give an IFD a real chance.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Before people start calling for my head over this, please let me explain why I've changed Template:ifd and friends to take image names in the format "Image_name.ext" instead of "Image:Image_name.ext". This needed to be done to make sure that the notice Template:idw spat out linked to the proper section heading rather than trying to link to "#File:Image_name.ext" when the discussion was at "#Image:Image_name.ext". It'll also help avoid using the misleading Image: prefix on non-images.
I made a couple minor tweaks to Twinkle so that it would list images correctly - if there are any other tools I can help fix please let me know. — Remember the dot ( talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious why IfD discussions are closed with the section name outside the "archive box" while AfD discussions are closed with the section name inside the "archive box". Is this because of the closing template used? TfDs seem to go both ways. CfDs seem to keep the section name on the outside.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Reading through the recent IfD nominations, there are a lot of them that are being deleted for being orphaned. These deletions seem relatively uncontroversial, if important, but they tend to clutter up the IfD pages, making it hard to find the deletions for which debate might be worthwhile.
May I suggest instituting an OIfD process, where orphaned images go into their own section or page? That would make it easy to scan for non-orphaned images. Of course, it would be bad faith to unlink and image and then propose deletion as an orphan... but that's the case now. — PyTom ( talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a dumb question: do I need to notify myself in writing of the impending deletion of two pictures I uploaded, when I am the person who listed the pictures on FFD in the first place? Erikeltic ( talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As the "Image:" namespace has been renamed "File:", I propose that the unwieldy (and partially redundant) name "Images and media for deletion" be changed to "Files for deletion" ( WP:FFD). Opinions? — David Levy 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the change. I was going to move all the subpages of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to subpages of Wikipedia:Files for deletion, but it turns out that the move tool has a limit of 100 automatic subpage moves. I could write a bot to move the rest, thoughts? — Remember the dot ( talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to move the templates as well? It would be sensible, even if {{
FfD}}
is a bit wierd at first sight...
Happy‑
melon
23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Can someone please delete File:Projectionist.png and then reupload a new screenshot? The current screenshot features a copyright violation of one of my image (hoverflies mating in midair). I would do this myself however I'm not sure whether I can upload under a fair use copyright tag considering I'm from Australia where we don't have fair use AFAIK... -- Fir0002 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Another editor boldly added files to the things that are eligible for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. I reverted the edits because this is a major change and it impacts policies, guidelines, and how-tos across both the deletion- and file- areas of the Wikipedia: namespace. I'm opening a discussion here so we can decide 1) do we want to do this and 2) what steps do we need to do to make this happen smoothly. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Effectively now we have a prod process—though different from articles. As davidwr says many of the files that would be covered as deleted, non-controversially, through here with no comment and AnomieBOT marking the discussion as closed. The only edits that would be saved is that by AnomieBOT and it does them in batches. I think that if this prod system were implemented then we'd not only get images deleted with even less community scrutiny than at present but have another place to have a backlog. The vast majority of Images nominated for deletion as deleted without comment or controversy and this seems to be working well - Peripitus (Talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Administrator Chick Bowen commented on the FfD process n his close of a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 10. If his conclusions are correct, they should probably be indicated in the head material for the page. They seem more or less on target to me, but I tend to avoid images when I can. Eluchil404 ( talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've written an orphaned-image identifying script on the toolserver, and it has identified over 35,000 self-published images that are orphans. And I mean true orphans - zero links from anywhere in Wikipedia, not even from Talk: or User: pages. Further, I filter out images that are already up for deletion, and images that have been edited in the last week (so as to give new images a chance to be placed).
Most of these images are of no encyclopedic value and should be deleted (you may have noticed my spamming of the IfD list lately), while some should be ported to Commons.
The question now is, how do we deal with it?
-- JaGa talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a thorny problem. I've gone through about the top 20 and it's not clear how to do this in any useful automatic way. A couple I deleted as obvious copyvios, sent quite a few to Ifd as unusable here, tagged a couple as missing permission and some more for moving to commons. I think you should also exclude images already tagged with {{ movetocommons}}. Whatever we do, 35K images is a flood to deal with....no real need to rush anything though. Mass Ifd/tagging will attract the rightful comment that it is too fast for people to check and decide so perhaps many images that should be on commons will be deleted. I reckon a few dedicated volunteers would be a better solution, though it may take a year or more. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A question on the list itself - does the list automatically re-generate itself? The reason I ask is that I randomly pick some offset so I jump right into the middle of the list. I figure there is no point in everyone starting at the beginning. My question comes from, as people get to those sections that I have randomly hit, will they find ones that I have tagged as move to commons and also nominated for deletion or will they be filtered out automatically? Gotta also commend you on that contribution listing beside the name, it has saved a few images that I would have otherwise nominated due to a complete lack of information on the image page. Also as a curiosity, how are these files sorted? -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've come across a lot of orphaned township map images such as these. (Just click on the township in the image's comment to see its replacement.) Do I need to FfD each one individually, or is there some more organized way to go about it? -- JaGa talk 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
When I announced the huge number of orphaned self-published images, we had over 35,000 of them. I just checked - now it's at around 10,000. Where'd they go? Has someone actually dealt with 25,000 images in less than a fortnight? -- JaGa talk 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted some link vandalism at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 24. Is there any chance that this should be replaced by a template? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a mass deletion request going on on Commons regarding whether or not images of cosplayers are derivative works of the copyrighted animated source characters. Your opinion would be welcome, whether or not you have a Commons account. I'm also interested in whether there is precedent for this on En. Dcoetzee 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, just to let you know that I unwittingly broke Template:Ffd2 in an attempt to prepopulate the page name as a deletion reason. It means that the Delete button next to some listings will prefill a deletion reason of "[[Wikipedia:Files". I'll do a proper sandbox test next time. Sorry for any inconvenience. Stifle ( talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Heads up - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If I want to nominate a file for deletion for being a possible fake / being from a likely unreliable source? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Since file redirects now "work", the question of how to handle them here arises (particularly in the context of AnomieBOT); this is clearly incorrect. My thoughts:
The detection of the first versus the second case would work the same as the current discrimination between "nominated a non-existent file" and "file was deleted after nomination". Any comments? Anomie ⚔ 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
duplicate}}
Is [1] an approved change to the wording of {{ duplicate}} ? 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 05:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking through Category:Media renaming requests. Some are useful files that just need to be renamed, such as File:0330280414.jpg... but many others are orphans and seem pretty random, such as File:0856263.jpg or File:100 09242.jpg or File:100 0982.jpg. They're available under a free license, and would be fine if they were on a userpage or something. Some have descriptions enough to say what they are, (like File:20032212.jpg), but they're not in use, and I don't know that they'd ever be good in an article. I guess they could hypothetically be useful, if someone knew more about what they were, but I think they're mostly just taking up space.
It seems there are 2 ways to deal with them. One, I could go through the trouble of renaming them (to what?), and then moving them to Commons. Two, I could nominate them for deletion. It would be a lot of images for deletion, though, if I nominated all renaming-request orphans. It'd certainly be easier than renaming and transferring them all to Commons. How should I handle these? All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the vast majority of {{ PD-Old}} and {{ PD-US}} photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, do the photos on this article violate NFCC#1 (An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above.)? If not, can said photos be donated to the "public domain" by a user, as it's just a photo of copyrighted images? Ryan4314 ( talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hiking.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been requested that "Files for Deletion" regulars weigh in on the debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28#File:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png, since it seems to involve nuances of policy. Any comments, for or against, would be welcome. – Quadell ( talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that all other deletion forums are now at 7 days, should this one now be as well?-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, and updated AnomieBOT's updating of the Old discussions section to match. Anomie ⚔ 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:Time magazine.jpg was listed for deletion by user:Damiens.rf. Four editors voted to keep this image, offering sound reasons for doing so, however the nominator (who I understood cannot vote here) has somehow trumped the unanimous opinion on the grounds of the image being "decorative". I'd be grateful if someone could explain how/why a nomination can trump four strong votes to keep. Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think the above image is unlikely to be PD? SGGH ping! 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to request that an Admin delete older versions of a file, that have been uploaded over top of? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we are currently discussing whether that tea cart is an artwork or just everyday object. If it is declared as art, may you use this in the enWP? We may not in the deWP. If you may not use it, too, I will request a deletion on Commons. -- Thalan ( talk) 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Where are you having this discussion?
I think it is art, because:
It’s initially visually attractive, but quickly starts to look impractical. To much care has gone into its design for a simple device, then leaving too many unsatisfying features. You can make a cart out of ready to use parts, or buy one that is perfectly functional more cheaply, in molded plastic. This one doesn’t have barriers to stop the tea falling off the sides. To move it, it either has to scrape, or the user has to awkwardly lift one end, tipping and rolling things, noting as before that there are insufficient barriers. The wheels are a visual feature rather than chosen function. Big wheels make for stability over uneven ground, but the tread of the wheel is virtually non-existent, meaning it is only suitable for very smooth floors, or it will bump about whatever is carried.
But I am not really an artist, so I asked someone more artistic. She said it looks like something from a cartoon; it looks comical. The wheels are stupid, as aren’t very good at helping to move the cart about. It’s art but useless art.
It reminds me of an all wooden bicycle I once saw. Beautiful wood. Nice finish. Probably works, but was never intended to. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There are 90-some images from a site which has been judged to be unreliable. The links were also seen as promotional and have been removed. Unfortunately, it appears that the site is also a copyright violating site, specifically with respect to images. For example, the image File:Ubuntu_on_Windows_-_Firefox_vs_Firefox.png is from this site, so has to have a source link to the site. But if you click through that source link, the site claims to have released a Windows screenshot into the public domain, something they are not entitled to do. I believe that by having a derived image and linking to the site, Wikipedia is aiding and abetting this copyright violation. What I'm not sure about is, do all images from this site need to be removed, or just the problematic ones? (i.e. ones that depict non-free software but don't acknowledge the software vendors interest in the image). Yworo ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:NFCC, the burden of proof is on "users seeking to include or retain content"; this implies that no consensus closes for fair-use images default to delete. However, according to precedent (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 22#File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 18#WbNORTHstand_gallery_470x313.jpg, among many others), no consensus closes for fair-use images default to keep. Question: What should no consensus closes default to? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
FfDs tend already to be quite stacked against users there that want to keep their images:The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus, and what the outcome of it not reaching a consensus is... Policy does not simply state that "the burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image." It says that it is "the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This does not change what happens if there is no consensus about whether they have provided a valid rationale. [3]
Please Note: I have opened a discussion on a separate but related issue on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 43#Clarify NFCC #8. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Default to Delete And how can anyone say our Nonfree content is hard to understand. Our Mission statement, our Five pillars all state that our goal is the production of redistributive free content. That background casts the light on our NFCC as to reduce to the absolute minimum of encumbered content to fill our needs. If it can't be demonstrated a consensus exists on the need for the encumbered file, it should be removed. -- M ask? 09:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal NFCC #8 requires that a rationale be provided, it does not require that the rationale be accepted by all editors. I submit that logically therefore once a rationale has been provided, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the rationale is insuffiecient should revert back to those proposing deletion as is usually the case for deletion discussions. If the rationale is trivial then there will be no problem demonstrating that it fails and consensus will be easy to acheive. However when the rationale is arguable then this approach, requiring consensus to delete, will force those proposing deletion to show through the weight of argument that their case has merit. Remember this is only regarding NFCC #8, the image will still need to satisfy all the other criteria and the reverse burden of proof for those criteria will remain. Additionally it should be pointed out that #8 is not a fair use criteria. It is an additional burden imposed by the project upon itself, one which any reasonable editor would support, unfortunately some have been a little over zealous in their interpretation of it, to the detriment of the project in my opinion. - Nick Thorne talk 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Our historical policy is almost assured deletion of NFCC unless a significant rationale is offered and supported by multiple editors. If we consider King of Hearts initial query is answered by Gigs wise response. (No discussion can be closed without consensus) then perhaps we keep policy as is?-- Knulclunk ( talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It should default to keep. A file should be considered important until proven obviously otherwise. -- Rockstone ( talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. FfDs shouldn't result in a no consensus. But the ambiguity in NFCC #8 inevitably leads to that. Make it objective, and we won't be having this discussion anymore. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Note added after archiving. The result of this discussion was called, at least
in one DRV, as follows:
The question at issue is whether no consensus defaults to delete where NFCC-related discussions are concerned. Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate template such as {{ ArticleHistory}} for files. I am attempting to preserve the history of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_11#File:Pokerstars_20051215_Check.jpg at File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg. The WP:FFD was closed as no consensus, but Keegan ( talk · contribs) who is an oversighter deleted the file due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy with notice to me to black out or omit private data. I would like to properly document the history of this file on its page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs)
For those of you who use Twinkle to add image deletion tags to captions, there is a bug that causes the preexisting caption to be hidden, by the addition of a superfluous | mark. This has been reported here, and seems related to this earlier bug report, but has yet to be fixed. This should all go without saying, but 1) the captions are necessary to evaluate the use of the image within the article, often providing commentary or at a minimum, identification; 2) relevant deletion procedure states that the tag should be added to the caption, not replace it; and more fundamentally, 3) there is certainly no valid reason to remove the captions while the images remain within the article, particularly when the removal is not constructive but rather accidental. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Until the bug is fixed, I see only two solutions: either refrain from using Twinkle to tag images, or go back and manually fix the captions in every image you tag with Twinkle. Postdlf ( talk) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is the transclusion for November 4 not working right? Gigs ( talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
On File:Unemploy sj1.gif Twinkle managed to add the FFD template to the file but not the corresponding rationale to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 4. I managed to get entries for File:Old house oakland1.gif on down for the related images, but not on this one. Can some admin delete this image as well. I can restart with another FFD, but on this latest batch and all previous noms there haven't been a response. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Has it been discussed whether or not a date navigation box could be put on the bottom of each daily page similar to the one currently used on the top? Personally, I think it could be slightly helpful. Especially on days when a ton of images get nominated.-- Rockfang ( talk) 09:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think "orphan" is a wrong reason for deletion. What isn't in use now, may be used later. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge? Debresser ( talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Under the name of each file nominated for deletion, there is the phrase "uploaded by [user name] (notify | contribs)". The wikitext for the "notify" link is: "[{{fullurl:User_talk:Dunmanhigh|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]". This link no longer works properly. Can someone knowledgeable fix it? — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I work primarily on US military biographical articles, especially Medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed a huge number of files coming up recommended for deletion by a single user User:Damiens.rf. Upon further review it appears that nearly all of the files that this user is focusiing their attention on belong to one user, User:Marine 69-71. Due to the sheer volume of files that this user has submitted for deletion many of them are being automatically deleted because knowone argues them and given that he is submitting dozens a day I simply don't have the time to go through each and every one of them to argue points for or against. Although there are some that I agree should probably be deleted there are many that I do not. Since it appears to me that this Damiens user is using this file deletion process as a means to attack the Marine 69-71 user I refuse to vote either way on any of them and I recommend that Damiens be limited to files not uploaded by Marine 69-71. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've come across this several times now. Files which come with a fair use rationale are removed from articles with the reason that a free use version must be available, then deleted with a speedy as they're now orphaned. To me this is gaming the system to use speedy and avoid a deletion review. I really think the time has come to come down and say this practise should be stopped. What is the community view on this. Justin talk 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the new edit notice ( Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Files for deletion) containing the list of FFD "common abbreviations" like "AU" or "OR". Yes, non-regulars may need help understanding those, but they need that help when reading the pages, not when editing them. Having the acronyms in the edit notice comes across as if we were officially promoting their use. That seems a step in the wrong direction. In fact, we should be firmly promoting not using them. I for one, after years of active admin service at IFD/FFD, still have to think twice every time I encounter these. They are annoying and useless. If people have difficulties understanding them, the solution is not to offer them cheat sheets. The solution is to get rid of them.
Please let's treat those acronyms as deprecated, and let's remove them from the edit notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This old edit appears to have accidentally removed a series of nominations. I just noticed this after removing a few ifds from images that did not appear in the final version - I first thought the missing ifd links resulted when the nomination process gets interrupted (as happened on Commons sometimes). - 84user ( talk) 06:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion occurring at
WP:VPPR#Time to remove placeholders? which involves this process. Your participation in the discussion there would be helpful.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The instructions currently read "If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2010 February 8}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." This should be made mandatory. An image in use in an article is part of that article's content, and a non-free image has no independent right to exist on WP outside of the articles that use it. There is no "due notice" if those interested in an article are never alerted that elements of its content may be deleted. Those who regularly edit and have watchlisted an article are going to be those most likely able to correct a sourcing issue with an image it uses, or to improve a non-free use rationale. Or, at a minimum, placing a notice in the image caption or on the article's talk page provides prompt notice that its editors need to find a free replacement ASAP.
Notifying the uploader should be considered less important, as no one owns uploaded images, particularly if the image is in use in articles, and there is no guarantee that an uploader will remain active with the project. postdlf ( talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canfield_skeleton.jpg should be replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brady_Canfield_skeleton_start_2.jpg which is an un-photoshopped, higher resolution copy of the original image already on commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.99.121 ( talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As Zorglbot who usually creates the log pages is currently gone, I've created some log pages within the last days. As I can't do this forever, it would certainly be helpful if someone with more time/editing options like AWB or a bot could pre-emptivily create some pages. Just note that {{ subst:ffd log}} won't do it currently, as there's no option to overwrite the day. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
THERE'S A FILE I'D LIKE TO DELETE. MY PHOTO. NO LONGER USED IN AN ARTICLE.
DELETION PROCEDURE IS INSANELY COMPLEX. SO I'M JUST LEAVING IT THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor uploaded a bunch of public domain images (older than 100 years). However he neglected to add a source (they're all from his personal collection) and so they were speedy-deleted when he wasn't looking. Can I just undelete them and add the source, or is there a procedure like DRV that has to be followed? Will Beback talk 01:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Are there any instructions on how to do this? Theleftorium (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is LQ/Low Quality being thrown around like so much flotsam? IT's being applied to images of VGA resolution and higher with no artifacts. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Contradiction about "no consensus" result for FFD about the proper course of action for "no consensus" results here—there seems to be a contradiction between the instructions on this page and the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process. Please contribute to the discussion there if you are interested. — Bkell ( talk) 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's partially in quote form, however at some point, I'll probably convert it to prose. Anyway, comments welcome. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of images being nominated with the rationale: "Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use" or similar. Looking at these images, most of them were likely in use in articles years ago (e.g. 2004, 2005 etc) when Wikipedia was young and better free images were not available. Should we really be deleting these? If someone wants to look back at how an article has progressed over Wikipedia's history, seeing what images were used in old revisions in helpful. It is only because the software does not record that images are in use in old revisions of articles that they appear "orphaned".
If we have the server capacity to keep images used in old revisions of articles, I think we should do so. They form a part of Wikipedia's history. If others agree, could we stop deleting images on this basis please? WJBscribe (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Inform the uploader: What to do if the uploader is no longer active on Wikipedia?
Please, change "If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2010 October 7}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." with "If the image is in use, also add {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2010 October 7}} to the caption(s), and add a notice to the article(s) talk pages." (this should/must be a mandatory requirement.)
IMHO, it would be great if, when a file is deleted, someone goes to edit all articles involved, because those red links in articles in the mainspace are demeaning.
Happy editing! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the entire format for submitting an image for deletion; could I just put the link up and let wiki do the rest?
commons:File:Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2010.jpg
Thank you in advance. ~ A passing person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.55.167 ( talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi I've seen a people changing the format of dates to what they think is correct e.g. from WP:DATESNO. currently we have YYYY Month DD, this doesn't seem to fit with the rest of WP. Is it possible to change the way the subpages are created and maybe a few templates to use DD Month YYYY. I understand this might be a whole HEAP of work so a workaround would be to add redirects to the current format for now so both formats work? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am currently trying to analyse the image uploads for this Contributor Copyright Investigation. The contributor has uploaded several PDF files which contain only images (e.g. File:Roja hatim .pdf or File:Qibla.pdf) and I was wondering if the fact that single images shouldn't really be in PDF format was a suitable criteria for deletion? Boissière ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, why do we have to substitute the {{ Ffd2}} and {{ Ffd2a}} templates? This adds a large chunk of unnecessary code in each file entry on the discussion page. Why not simply transclude? Reh man 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Originally in a talk page: Your original decision should be a sticky note on some important page. Too often in Wikipedia, administrator just do things based on whim. When you put well thought out decisions on a post it board, then gradually administrative decisions can be consistent. Murder articles can also use some fair treatment. People claim "other crap exists" but the more fair and consistent we are, the better it is for Wikipedia. Suggestions? Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, since this appears to be taking the form of "settled case law", as they might say in the legal system. I have no idea where you would go about putting such a "sticky note", but the idea is a good one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Decision explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#Chengdu_J-20.jpg
Aftermath: Despite protest and howls that it should be non-free use, a free use photo was eventually found....a photo of a top secret plane. This should illustrate that free use is often possible, even with top secret things.
Madrid 2020 ( talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, can FFD handle renaming files? File rename requests are currently causing problems at WP:RM (it's out of scope) See discussions at User_talk:Harej#Improper_restoration_of_non-free_content_in_violation_of_policy_by_RM_bot and File_talk:Portrait_of_Edward_James.jpg . 65.94.47.11 ( talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea how to edit the box up top to fix this Rip-Saw ( talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved NW ( Talk) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion →
Wikipedia:Files for discussion — There may be other options.
Japanese knotweed (
talk)
10:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
File:BatmanBBlogo.jpg -- Might this image qualify for deletion based on the resolution (as a non-free logo)? Resolution is an issue about which I have always had some confusion. In part, each person's idea of "low resolution" is somewhat different. It seems like a far overly-needed size yet isn't of crisp quality, but as you know, reducing an uploading over the file name doesn't mean anything; it can be undone. (Oh, and he lies about the resolution in his notes as if trying to hide the fact; his talk page shows several image-related violations over twp years+) — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As some may know, a bot, Zorglbot, up until it was blocked for malfunctioning on March 26, was creating the pages on FFD and adding the date headers. Since the bot's blocking, some people have added the date header, but pages have mostly been going without, which has been causing problems on the main FFD table of contents, unless someone adds the header in manually. I have changed the way FFD's table of contents displays to hide the problem for now, but it should be fixed so that the dates are automatically added to the tops of the log pages. The same problem also appears to have spilled over to PUF as well, as Zorglbot created pages there as well.
As there has been no move to bring Zorglbot back from the dead, we need to find a replacement for this function. Considering the missing bot went unnoticed for two and a half weeks, manually adding headers seems to not be a viable solution. Thus it would seem that we need to find another bot to take this task. Considering that AnomieBOT automatically closes many FFD discussions, it might be worthwhile to reach out to that bot's maintainer to seek approval for that task? What do folks think? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Images that are both tagged as free and non-free cannot exist. An image is either free or non-free. Is there a template for CSD of these or should I start Filling mass IfDs for these files? ΔT The only constant 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The archive sequence is currently a muddle. The oldest archive is in fact Archive 6; then Archives 7, 8 and 9; then Archives 1 to 5; then Archive 10. (This is because there was a page rename, then several years later the archives of the old page were moved to be archives here, but out-of-sequence).
Could someone with the power to move over redirects sort this out, and move them around into chronological order?
Best regards, Jheald ( talk) 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Is FFD able to handle requests for deletion of old file revisions? ATM I have to try and find an admin to do it each time, and was wondering if there was a 'proper' way to do it. If there isn't, I think we should try and implement something into FFD, and update the relevant instructions. Thoughts? Acather96 ( talk) 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the idea of splitting up FFD into Wikipedia:Free files for discussion and Wikipedia:Non-free files for discussion. We don't have to have a formal !vote or anything right now - call this an informal straw poll to see if we can refine our procedures a bit. A problem with FFD is that there are at least three distinctly classes of content that come here:
I think FFD works fairly well with the first ans second group of images, but I think our processes could be refined for the third group. With a separate page, we could focus our time/energy on evaluating the more controversial FFD nominations instead of having to wade through 50 non-controversial ones to find the one that matters. We could also fine-tune the instructions for WP:NFFFD to help users who may not be familiar with our non-free content policies to understand what issues they should be considering when opining whether to keep or remove the image. We could also consider expanding the scope of WP:NFFFD to include discussions about potentially removing a fair use image from one page that it is on, while allowing it to continue to be used elsewhere. (eg, suppose File:JeanLucPicard.jpg is used not only on Jean-Luc Picard, where its use is relatively non-controversial, but also on Patrick Stewart, where its removal was contested. WP:NFFFD would provide a suitable forum for discussing this removal in the light of our non-free content policies, as opposed to the article talk page, which likely attracts little attention from those familiar with the policies.) Any thoughts? -- B ( talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As long as FFD is not flooded I think it is ok to keep everything at the same page. But the suggestion above gave me an idea. We could start a big cleanup of all unused files. I have not checked how many that would be but it could be easily be 10,000 files or it could perhaps be 200,000 files or more.
I bet if we add so many files to FFD it will make the system break down. So if we are going to make a mass cleanup we need a better system to handle that.
I'm also active on Commons and I think it is a bad idea just to move everything to Commons. It should only be moved there if it is realistic that the file can be used for something.
One way is to add a "Category:Unused file for possible deletion" (or whatever) to all the unused files + add a notice to all uploaders with unused files. Then we can all look through the files and move the files we want to keep to "Category:Unused files suggested to move to Commons" (can be done with hotcat). Then a bot can move them or they can be moved manually. After some time (3 months?) we can start delete the remaning files (if they are still unused). Either a mass deletion or add a few hundred files in a "Category:Final chance to save this file as of (date)" and if file is still there in 7 days and is unused it could be deleted. -- MGA73 ( talk) 19:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points:
We already have a tool that lets you view orphan images: http://toolserver.org/~jason/orphaned_images.php. I'm not sure putting the images into categories will accomplish much. Cleaning out orphan images is really pretty slow. Nominating crappy ones for deletion is fast, but a lot of images require some detective work to figure out what they even are. And then you have to move to commons, check the formatting of the bot-generated new description page, and be sure to categorize them correctly at commons so that they're findable there. (Otherwise it's not much better having them there than here.) I think dealing with orphan images is a worthwhile project (I do it myself from time to time), but I don't think there is any viable way to speed up the process because what can be done with automated tools is already done by automated tools. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
The image File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg was nominated for deletion by ShipFan at 16:41 on 23 July 2011. Subsequently, the image was tagged for speedy under CSD F8 (image available on Commons) by SoWhy at 10:06 on 24 July. Admin Alexf—after doing the usual checks, but missing an ongoing deletion discussion on Commons—then deleted the image. I noticed this had happened when someone on Commons used the speedy as an argument in the deletion discussion there, and notified Alexf of the confusion, and he restored the image. So far so good.
However, when Alexf deleted the image, AnomieBOT automatically closed the full deletion discussion here. The net result is that the full deletion discussion never reached a consensus; the image is still tagged as being considered for deletion; but the deletion discussion has been closed.
I am uncertain how to rectify this. I don't want to just remove the ffd tag, and reopening the discussion after it has been closed seems inappropriate. However, since the discussion was closed after less than 24 hours, the community did not have enough time to reach a consensus.
Could someone more familiar with the procedural stuff here advice or, preferably, step in? Thanks. -- Xover ( talk) 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll just chime in to say I've also had a pretty bad experience with the image evaluation process in the July 20-23 period.
I know it is very easy to just look at an image and say "somethings wrong, delete it". But I want you to know-- every image you delete, you get an "F". Every time you hit delete from something other than nonsense, you have failed as an admin.
If copyright infos and rationale aren't up to snuff, FIX IT. Delete first and ask questions later is a lot more convenient for reviewers, I know-- but it pisses off hundreds of editors in the process and tells us not to waste our time trying to help WP.-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This File:J fred muggs-5.jpg film screenshot is about to be deleted under fair use review, but it was copied over a public domain photo with the same name. Can an admin perform a history split? The public domain file could be kept and copied to Commons. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lichfield_Collage.jpg this collage image has no attribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.216.143 ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw a file once that said some image or something was considered for deletion, but it was decided to keep it. I thought I'd put it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernadette_pennies.jpg, which was scheduled but kept. Where's the tag and where do I put it? Thanks... Smarkflea ( talk) 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
So many files are currently nominated for deletion that the parser tags at the bottom of this page can't keep up! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that Fastily has stopped making nominations, which is good. At first, I didn't realize that Xeno had mass-objected, and I spent a bit more time than I would have wanted to, looking at them file-by-file. And you know what? I found some where I agreed with Xeno that they should be kept, and at least one where I agreed with Fastily that it should be deleted. I really cannot imagine anyone going through all of the nominated files and making intelligent decisions about them all. Please let me suggest that someone close all the discussions in which Fastily and Xeno are the only commenters as "no consensus". And I'll extend a shameless invitation to Fastily and Xeno to read WP:AAFFD! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The above thread leads me to propose a change in procedure. As long as I can remember, FFD nominations that get no input from anyone but the nominator are always closed as "delete", even if the rationale is something unrelated to copyright and if the file is unabashedly free. Why don't we say that all nominations must receive at least one "delete" vote when copyright is not an issue? Nyttend ( talk) 03:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that some editors on wiki are taking the bare minimum route and nominating in-use images for deletion without any notice to the talk page of the article where that image is in use. I find this practise to be dishonest, manipulative, and in some ways, taking advantage of the system to get what you want done. The current guideline states:
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2011 September 25}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.
I would like to see this changed to:
If the image is in use in less than five articles (not talk pages or project pages), proper notice must be given at those articles by adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2011 September 25}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.
This would, except in cases where the image is frequently used (in which case cleanup should be done prior to deletion), obligate nominators to make it more visible that an image, currently in use, may disappear tomorrow with no apparent warning. Despite statements otherwise, the editors of the article are the ones most likely to know why it is there and what purpose it serves; tey should have the opportunity to state their opinion before the fact rather than jumping through hoops after it disappears to figure out what happened and where it was discussed.
This of course would be akin to the fact that notification of nominations at Commons are now posted to the article talk pages by a bot (which could also be done here). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this image to help better The New Girl in Town article on 3 June 2011. The image was created by a Selena fan several years ago. The album is believed to be fake, however publications such as the Joe Nick Patoski book (1996) states otherwise. I am an agreement that the article is false, and there is currently a discussion about deleting the article. Aside from that, the image is not a fair use, rather a fan-created image that contains a non-free image of Selena herself as a teen in the mid-1980s. Can this image be nominated for deletion? Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
File:MOJLogo.jpg and File:Virgin.net.GIF have both been missed for deletion. They are tagged for deletion after 25 October and 28 October respectively. Cloudbound ( talk) 02:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I listed a file as a possibly unfree file in error. It really should be subject to a file for deletion, as there was a previous PUF discussion on the same photo. Is it too late to hat the discussion there and relist it here? I'm referring to [4] ScottyBerg ( talk) 06:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a process, or a report, which deals with File talk: pages held locally on Wikipedia even though the file is hosted on commons? For example, what should be done with File talk:NuclideMap stitched small preview.png? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There are 38 "images" in this cat. Do we think that the odds of recovery are now so poor that they should be tidied up and deleted? Ronhjones (Talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There have been FfD nominations (one a now-withdrawn mass nomination [5]) of files from which svg derivative works have been created. Usually these files have been tagged with Template:Vector version available which says that the originals should be kept when attribution is required by the licence. Even for PD files, where attribution is not legally required, it may be necessary or desirable to avoid plagiarism, Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Attributing_media_copied_from_other_sources. Sometimes there is no backlink from the svg and sometimes the original creator is explicitly attributed. On other occasions the backlink is the only attribution. Is there a policy for such deletions? I think each has to be taken on its merits (unless all are kept or copied to Commons). When the svg is on Commons any deletions here should be harmonious with Commons policy. I !voted "delete" here and here but I am already thinking I should change to "comment"! Thincat ( talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) is a 1996 US law that restored copyright to many foreign works that had fallen into the public domain in the US. In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.
For some time, Wikimedia Commons has been accepting images that are copyrighted in the US under the URAA, on the theory that it would be held unconstitutional. Such images were tagged with {{ Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. The English Wikipedia has also borrowed the template and the practice, but I have not yet opened a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia. Dcoetzee ( talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems that a lot of files are getting deleted. Are they from prior to when the uploading of images to WP was tightened up? If not does there need to be a tighter control of image uploading? I don't like editors having to waste valuable wikitime. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I've recently had two complaints about AnomieBOT closing discussions as "Wrong Forum" when someone was wanting to nominate for deletion a locally-existing image description page for a Commons file. True, most of these could be deleted under WP:CSD#F2, but it is within the realm of possibility that such a deletion could be contested.
I propose that we update WP:FFD#What not to list here to specifically recommend {{ db-nofile}} as a first step, and if that is denied to list the page at WP:MFD instead of here since there is no actual file being deleted. I'd then update AnomieBOT to repeat this guidance when appropriate. Anomie ⚔ 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"I'd then update AnomieBOT to repeat this guidance when appropriate."Personally, I don't think a request for deletion of a page that is not a file is appropriate for WP:FFD, even if the page resides in the File namespace. Anomie ⚔ 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the listings page. "July 29" is appearing as the latest date -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
How quickly can files kept by FFD be renominated? The same day it was kept, could it be renominated? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 6#File:Ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia.jpg is still open, but is no longer listed for some reason. Spinning Spark 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Is deletion of pages in TimedText namespace handled at Files for deletion or Miscellany for deletion? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:Dane Blue - More Feeling.ogg.en.srt. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After some recent FFD DRV issues, one aspect that came up was low participation in these. I believe part of this is based on the current advice where, while the file page and uploader notification are mandatory, the notification on article pages that use the image is optional. Given that we are likely dealing with images where the uploader has long and gone, this basically means these notices are falling on deaf ears.
Making the article talk page notification mandatory would at least avoid anyone later saying "but I never knew the image was up for deletion" if they were using it for their article. It would also encourage more participation at FFD which, I believe, many closers would appreciate. (Obviously, orphaned files would not need this). It might be more work on the nominator, but it would help in the long run. -- MASEM ( t) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If we consider the process of first removing an image from a page and then nominating immediately at FFD is "out of process" and improper behavior, then we easily can get a bot to be made that tags FFDs that are non-orphans to drop messages on all talk pages for articles it is presently being used in, making this "mandatory" aspect trivial to do. (Note that I can see cases of where Editor A removes the image, Editor B readds, and then Editor A takes it to FFD to get more input - that's ok. It's if Editor A removes the image, and then there's no intermediate edits that restore the image, before Editor A FFD's it.) -- MASEM ( t) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion related to the "orphaning before FFD" thread above has just started at WP:VPR#Restricting people from orphaning non-free images, unless free replacement is found or person still lives?. Anomie ⚔ 13:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that FFD discussions generally don't seem to attract huge numbers of participants, and deletion of images used in articles can be controversial I think that notifying relevant WikiProjects would be a good idea. Before anyone starts complaining about increased effort, I don't propose to make it mandatory just suggest it as something nominators should consider. The current wording concludes with:
I propose adding the following sentence after that:
The thinking behind this is that it puts the suggestion in the minds of people who haven't thought of it. Certainly when I nominate something I find it frustrating if it doesn't get much attention, and I doubt I'm the only one like this. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
After no objections in two weeks I've now made the proposed addition. [8] Thryduulf ( talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The real issue here with lack of attention is that FFD is 95% "crap to delete" and 5% meaningful discussions. If we were to split out "unused images" from all other nominations, then it may get more eyes on the meaningful discussions. -- B ( talk) 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been much comment above about tracking images that were removed from articles. I have had an idea for how a bot might be able to collate such a list going forwards (but not historically). I have asked about the feasibility of the idea at WP:BOTREQ#Image removal tracker, which any bot programmers here are specifically invited to comment on. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Over at Bot requests, CBM indicates that it would be possible to (if I've understood it correctly) track changes to the list of pages that include media in the category "all non-free media". This obviously would obviously only track non-free media, addressing the anon's comments above. So does anyone think this is an idea worth progressing? Thryduulf ( talk) 12:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So is FFD all about deleting files based on licensing, FUR, copyright, and the like? Or are other reasons valid? "Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project" is pretty vague. What would we do with, say, an image released by company that promotes itself without imparting real information ( cf.)? Or put more broadly, does a file have to meet a reason spelled out here in order to qualify for deletion? Is this the appropriate venue for deleting free images? -- BDD ( talk) 21:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are over 100 non-free images depicting specific episodes of TV series that are currently backlogged and awaiting an admin's decision at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 23. Recently, about a dozen similar nominations were closed as "delete" at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_May_22#File:STMatterofHonor.jpg. In each case, some editors claim that the use of a single image significantly increases understanding of the article, while others disagree. Several editors requested a hold on these deletions pending wider discussion. I'd like to have that discussion.
We all know that WP:NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." And we know that this can be quite subjective. A few editors would interpret this to mean that album covers and book covers should not be hosted on Wikipedia, since (according to this line of thinking) you can fully understand an article about an album or a book without seeing its cover. At the other extreme, in any NFCC#8 discussion you can always find someone who will claim any give image significantly increases their understanding of the topic. Community consensus generally finds a useful middle ground.
There are many Featured Articles on television episodes that show a single non-free image in the main infobox to depict the content of the show in question. Examples include Doomsday (Doctor Who), Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural), Cartman Gets an Anal Probe (South Park), The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson (The Simpsons), Deep Throat (The X-Files episode), and many others. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument to make in deletion discussions, but Featured Articles are not mere "other stuff"; they are "the best Wikipedia has to offer", judged through an exhausting process to remove any flaws before they are promoted. This certainly adds weight to the argument that the omission of such images would be detrimental to a full understanding of the episode. But it is not definitive. On the other hand, recent deletions could indicate a growing consensus that such use is invalid.
It seems to me that there are three ways we can go on this. (1) We can state as a general guideline that we usually assume a single non-free screenshot of a television episode is legitimate in an article on that episode, assuming the content of the image is discussed in the article itself, in the same way that we assume that a single non-free portrait is usually acceptable in a biography of a deceased person when no free images exist, or that we assume that a book cover or album cover is acceptable in an article on a book or album. (2) We can state as a general guideline that non-free images of individual episodes are very rarely acceptable, since repeating characters can be shown in other articles, and any action specific to that episode can nearly always be fully explained in text. (3) We can decline to offer any such simple guideline, and instead we would say that many such images pass NFCC#8 and many others do not. The only way to know is to watch the entire episode, look at the image in question, and decide if that individual image significantly increases the understanding of that particular episode.
So what do we want to do?
See also previous discussions, for example Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 106#Should all screenshots in articles about television episodes be deleted? Its happening now. Have WT:NFC and the relevant wikiprojects been notified of this? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Our non-free content policy is not a single criteria. It is a list of guidelines that also link to other guidelines.
The issue of whether or not a single screenshot from an episode (meaning, each and every episode) should be used cannot be argued against with NFCC#8 as a reasoning for general use of non free screen shots in all episode articles. It is an individual argument against misuse of images with little to no context, not all use. The meaning of the criteria is to allow use if the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Many people who argue against use are forgetting that this is a visual art. Words alone cannot replace the screenshot and a free version is not possible (of a screenshot). Our guideline: Wikipedia:Non-free content is the complete non-free content guideline (Non-free content rationale guidelines are separate). That guideline establishes that screenshots are acceptable use in the section "Acceptable use" (see how that works). WP:NFCI states:
"5. Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question."
So, leave the backlog or have a drive to clear it but don't change our guidelines because some editors feel that NFCC#8 is an excuse, It isn't. That is why we have actual guidelines and not just the criteria.
Does this mean that any screenshot from the episode is acceptable? No. Only if what is being depicted is discussed within the body of the article. Also, there will be individual reasons why a non-free screen shot does not pass other criteria such as NFCC#1, if there is a free image of the filming of the episode. Not uncommon these days.
If it ain't broke...don't fix it, please.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that large numbers of these FfD's are being closed (and the images are being deleted) without a clear consensus. See, for example, File:ST-TNG Firstborn.jpg (at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 23): this discussion was closed as "delete" even though all of the comments favoured keeping the image. Many others on this same page have been deleted even though only one or two comments favoured deletion. In the absence of a general agreement that the (mostly repetitive) arguments for deletion are all spot-on and the (also mostly repetitive) arguments for retention are all completely out to lunch — and given the still-ongoing discussion here with no clear consensus at this time — I believe these deletions may be premature. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
In cases of nominations that are part of a long-running tradition of similar cases, closures need to be made not just based on the vagaries of which voters happen to turn up in each case, but also in light of the long-established principles and standards of how such cases are decided. In this case group, there is indeed such a stable, long-standing consensus, about what counts as a valid argument for this type of situation. In light of this established practice, I discounted those keep votes that were merely procedural ("don't make group nominations"), and those that merely made a blanket non-specific assertion of F8 significance. Long-standing policy consensus has established that there is only one type of argument that can lead to a valid keep result here: somebody needs to explain in specific, concrete terms what aspect the article's content an image serves to illustrate and how the article could be less adequately understood without it. Such an argument has to be stated either in the XfD discussion or in the FUR on the image page. In the absence of such an explicit, individualized keep argument, deletion is the only valid outcome. None of the images in question here had a valid FUR in this sense, and as far as I remember none of them had substantial individual keep arguments in the FFDs. In this situations, there were indeed not just deletable by the FFD rules, but also subject to speedy deletion for lack of valid rationales.
Moreover, in the large majority of these cases, the articles themselves consisted entirely or almost entirely of plot renarration. It is also a long-standing principle in these discussions that an article that lacks well-sourced analytical commentary cannot possibly support a valid case of non-free image use, because such use depends on the presence of critical commentary.
During all this process (since May!) I have not seen that any of the editors involved were going to the articles in question and improving them in order to create a better basis for using an image. In not a single case have I seen that any of the FURs was improved while an image was up for discussion. All the images I deleted recently still had entirely boilerplated non-specific pseudo-FURs that were prima facie invalid.
If any of you wish to salvage any specific image(s) among those I deleted in this batch, please let me know and I'll re-open that discussion; however, I'll expect that a valid individual, specific and concrete keep argument will then be brought forward, that a correct and individualized FUR will be written, and that it will be demonstrated that the article in question is of sufficient quality to support an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Both the current RfC on this page and the above complaint are based on the mistaken assumption that there is a lack of a clear consensus about how such cases ought to be handled. This assumption is false. The existing consensus is manifested in literally hundreds of precedents of previous FFDs, all of which were handled according to a very consistent, stable interpretation of our existing NFCC policy.
In the period between January 2009 and May 2012, i.e. prior to the recent large batches of mass nominations (in May 2012, November 2012 and again in May 2013), there were 174 separate FFD cases regarding TV episode images, i.e. on average about one every week. Of these, only 11 were closed as keep and an additional 7 as "no consensus". The "delete" closures were handled by 18 different admins (40 by Peripitus, 37 by Fastily, 29 by Schuminweb, 21 by Explicit, 5 by Drilnoth, 4 by myself, and 3 or fewer each by Angusmclellan, B, Courcelles, Danger, King of Hearts, Nv8200p, Quadell, Stifle, Skier Dude and Wknight94.)
(There were a total of about 800 additional FFDs in the course of the second half of 2012, mostly as part of large batches. They too resulted in deletions in the large majority of cases.)
During the period prior to May 2012, each of the major FFD-handling admins repeatedly made "delete" closures despite a lack of a clear majority or even in the face of a numeric majority to the contrary. In all cases of "keep" closures, the decisions were based on an argument demonstrating an individual function of an image in supporting critical discussion in the text. No FFD was ever closed as "keep" based merely on arguments of the type we have seen made here by those who supported " #Option 1", regarding a general blanket allowance, legitimacy of a generic "identifying" use or a general assumption of F8 being met as a matter of routine. To be sure, such arguments were quite often raised in the FFDs, but they were always, invariably, overruled. There has been an unwavering consensus in all these closures that there must be an individual, specific justification on a case-by-case basis, that it must involve the image supporting sourced critical commentary in the text, and that a very large proportion of the existing images in older articles are bad and need to be cleaned up.
This is the existing policy consensus. There is no basis for trying to overturn it here.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended data: TV episode FFDs, Jan 2009 – May 2012
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This RFC has been open for five days, and I'm ready to close it. Thank you so much, everyone, for the terrific response this has merited! Thanks especially to Stefan2's link to a related archived village pump discussion, and to Fut.Perf. for providing voluminous examples of previous decisions.
I opened this RFC because I sometimes close old FFD debates, but I didn't know what the consensus was regarding the 100+ (at the time) open debates on episode screenshots. I could not find any page or group of pages that made clear the consensus on how to treat these images. Through this RFC, thanks to everyone's input, I think the consensus is now clear.
There were equal amounts of support and opposition to the idea of assuming a single screenshot is valid in an episode article, much the way we do for book covers. Although there were valid arguments on both sides, the "oppose" comments were more often well-grounded in a knowledge of Wikipedia policy. There was virtually no support for the idea of assuming a screenshot is invalid, and even less support for the contention that no guideline should exist. It was option 4, contributed by Jheald, that garnered near-unanimous support.
When an admin (such as myself) wants to close a deletion discussion for a TV episode, when determining whether NFCC#8 is fulfilled, the following questions seem useful, based on the discussion above. Is the specific content of the screenshot actually discussed in the body of the article itself? Is that discussion relevant to the rest of the article body? Is the image content discussed in ways that address more than simple plot exposition, but that describe other aspects such as production content or analysis of visual content by critics? If so, then the image likely passes NFCC#8 in an article on the episode. But if the image content is not mentioned in the article body at all, or only in a very cursory way, then the image is unlikely to pass NFCC#8. This seems to be the standard recommended by the community as a whole, and it is the standard I will apply.
(On a personal note, I am pleased that this does not place an insurmountable burden on content creators. Nearly every television episode article could include a valid screenshot, but only if someone wants to do the work of researching which scenes portray notable production details, or which are mentioned by critics, etc., and if that editor is willing to contribute enough to the body of the article to justify the image use. In this way, non-free content can only be kept if enough new free content is created to show that NFCC#8 is met, which seems to me to be a neat way to fulfill Wikipedia's goal of supporting free content.)
When this RFC is archived, it can be a useful resource to point to when anyone has questions about how to handle this sort of situation. Thank you all for participating. – Quadell ( talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)