![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Ulster Defence Regiment is currently a GA nominee, and one of the article's images being debated at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_19#File:The_Yellow_Card.jpg. Much has been said there, but debate seems to have trickled off. The uploader has requested closure so that the article can move forward. I can't close the FFD, since I left my own opinions there (and I wasn't at my most tactful, sadly). Does anyone want to make a determination, for the sake of the GA-nom? – Quadell ( talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A vast number of bitmap images have been listed for deletion (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 3) on the grounds that they have been "obsoleted by vector version". These deletions are all (AFAICS) coming from User:Sfan00 IMG.
We should not delete these. I know of no policy reason to delete them, at Commons there is a very clear consensus to not delete them.
We should not delete images for no other reason than "obsoleted by vector version". Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
only for certain bots (like ContinuityBot) to rule they didn't meet Commons requirements. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's perfectly valid for us at en.wiki to delete unused and superseded bitmaps, so long as (1) the replacement SVG is accurate and appropriate, (2) the bitmap is not needed for a cc-by or GFDL audit trail, and (3) procedure at FFD is followed. On the other hand, it's also perfectly valid for anyone to copy these images to Commons so long as Commons wants them -- this often happens when such images are nominated at FFD, and the case is closed as "deleted as F8". My only strong request is that if you are going to move an "obsoleted" bitmap to Commons, please add categories to it there so that it's not just another potentially-useless and unfindable image. (Just use the same categories the SVG uses.) – Quadell ( talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a project to replace NFU images with free use ones at [Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 August 2013]. In the process I've inadvertently used images which didn't fall into the copyright permission I was using. I've immediately reverted those images but I think I should call on someone to speedily delete the ones I used in error until such times as I can secure permission for their use. The files in question are all tagged as "free use image" or "free use file" and can be found at the following pages: File:18th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:17th Lancers Badge.jpg, File:19th Royal Hussars Badge.jpg, File:1st Life Guards Badge.jpg, File:15th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:16th Lancers Badge.jpg, File:14th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:13th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:26th Hussars Badge.jpg, and File:12th Lancers Badge.jpg. Sorry for the mixup. This only came to light when I spoke to the chap I get my military badges from. He informed me they weren't pictures he had taken. Some of the badges I uploaded were fine and aren't affected by this. Others will be going up tomorrow with the correct permission. In the meantime I've got some grovelling to do with a certain copyright holder. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that the template used to add nominations to the list be stripped of the "link header" function? Just below the header, the file is linked, so is it necessary to also link it in the header? Some editors like myself prefer the "right-click to edit" rather than "edit links". When the linked section header is right-clicked, all one gets is the usual choice box that one gets when one right-clicks a link. To edit the page, one has to go back to the higher level "date" header and right-click it. Then one must hunt for the particular file one wants to edit. If the filename headers are stripped of their links, then this problem would be solved:
A right-click of the unlinked version in a header will allow editors to edit the individual file entry instead of the entire contents under the higher "Date" header. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well I just discovered by experiment that my major concern here is unfounded. I played with it and found that if I right-click the page anywhere to the right of the section header on the same line as the header, even all the way to the right edge of the page, the edit screen for just that file opens. So I don't really have to open the entire edit page to leave an opinion or comment. Now, I still don't see the need for two links for each file, one in the section header and one just below that header, but at least I've found that there is a way to edit an individual entry that does not require my jumping thru hoops. Joys to all! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. Oh! and I won't edit the links out of the section headers; however, I would support that if others want it. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
This week amount of participants has been very low. What gives? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I assume people are aware of the huge backlog? There are uncontroversial noms from July that haven't been closed, and whole pages of noms from over a month ago that are barely touched. I started closing some of these, but it's quite a lot. Have a bunch of FFD regulars retired or something? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 12:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Since I cannot nominate it myself, perhaps someone can do so on my behalf:
Reason: Deliberately poor quality photograph, originally illustrating hoax article Glass jar, now unused. 86.169.184.130 ( talk) 03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Weather Machine (sculpture) is a Featured Article candidate, and uses 3 freely-licensed photos of a 1988 sculpture. However, since the sculpture is copyrighted, the photos are non-free derivative works, and are nominated for deletion on Commons. It is certainly acceptable to use a single non-free photograph of the sculpture in an article about that sculpture, but there is discussion about whether multiple non-free photos can be used. (It is a dynamic sculpture, which looks different on different days.) If you are willing to comment, your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Weather Machine (sculpture)#Use of non-free images in this article. – Quadell ( talk) 14:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Can somone recover this file File:Machine Head Halo.jpg ? Thanks XXN ( talk) 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As I'm sure any regular editors/nominators/commenters at FFD will be aware, this page is massively backlogged. I'm starting to work through it, and luckily most nominations are uncontroversial orphaned junk deletion. However, I do now and then come across more controversial, contested nominations, but for which their discussions have not reached consensus, last being commented on in October. Whilst I could close them all as No consensus, I'm reluctant to do so as we're talking about a large number of potential copyright/policy violations here, as they tend to be NFCC disputes. Hence, would it be OK to allow the relisting of these nominations, adding the {{ relist}} nomination and placing them on 'Todays' log? This would also bring us in-line with other deletion venues such as AFD and CFD which use a similar procedure. What do other FFD regulars think - I'm pinging the most prolific nominators I've seen, sorry if I missed you: @ Kelly:, @ Stefan2:, @ Sfan00 IMG:. Thanks, Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if the following could be modified.
old text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.
new text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or there is at least one vote of support and no objections to deletion have been raised.
reason: The present text says that a file can be deleted if no one objects to it, even if no one voices support for the deletion.
note: I made this request after seeing this undeletion request. If this change is accepted, is it recommended that it occurs after December 18th. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header revolving around the use of {{ pufc}} in the WP:PUF process. As the header talk page most likely has very few watchers, I am dropping a note here to get relevant discussion from the file namespace community. -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 14:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if this is covered somewhere, but is there a procedure for nominating several files by the same uploader, or does it have to be done one by one? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious about our deletion policies regarding works thought to be in the public domain. Crisco 1492 recently led an effort to delete File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg because they challenged the long-standing belief that the image is PD in the US. They did not, however, provide any evidence that the image was ever copyrighted. It was apparently published in 1967 without a CRN, and there is no reason to believe that the image was registered within ten years of its initial release. How can an image be deleted because nobody has proven that its not PD? The notion that the onus is on editors to assert a negative seems like a logic fail—how can we prove that something did not happen? I understand the practice of assuming on the safe side, but after several editors have demonstrated a degree of due diligence, why do we assume them to be wrong absent any evidence that they are wrong? Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In Category:Wikipedia possibly unfree files, we have dated categories for possibly unfree files. However, we do not have any dated categories for files for deletion. Should we have that? Today, I accidentally noticed a file, File:嘉顺皇后.jpg, which was nominated for deletion back in November last year. The file had accidentally been deleted from the daily log page by Cyberpower678 ( talk · contribs), and this remained overlooked until now. With dated categories, we would have spotted this earlier as we would have had a category with files but no seemingly open discussions on the daily log page. There might be other similar examples out there somewhere which currently are hard to find. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to delete the earlier version of File:Gaohuaide_1797.jpg that I uploaded back in December 2012, but I couldn't figure out how to proceed. Thanks in advance. Timmyshin ( talk) 05:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard ( talk) 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
How should I handle an image like File:WilliamDickersonDetentionFacility.jpg, which is missing info here but was anyway transferred to Commons under the same name? Instead of using a tool or bot, the user re-uploaded the image and referenced enwp as the source. How can I generate the "original upload" and file description info to preserve the attribution history at its Commons location? – czar 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I requested deletion or changing licences to CC BY-NC-ND of those photos; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emin_Kul.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heart_Of_Istanbul_From_Air.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levent_%282011%29.jpg on 23 August 2015, nobody contacted to me and images are still there, what should I do?
-- Ail Subway ( talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on whether or not Wikipedia:Non-free content review's functionality should be merged into WP:FFD and then WP:NFCR shut down. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of nominations closed recently regarding File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG and File:Clark County Courthouse Indiana 002.JPG - there are other examples. These are files that were tagged with {{ Keep local}} by the uploader years ago, but are no longer used in any Wikipedia articles. The debates were closed as "keep" because of the Keep Local tag. I'm wondering if there's any real policy reason to keep copies of these types of images on the local project. The current presumption seems to default to "keep" even if nobody defends retention of the file.
I've run across other situations where the uploader of images with the "Keep local" tag has obviously retired or been absent for years. In those cases is it all right for any editor to remove the tag?
Any clarification/insight is appreciated. Kelly hi! 08:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ PD-Pre1978}} and {{ PD-US-no notice}} have been nominated for discussion under WP:TfD -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There has been consensus to move Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice is placed here instead of making an immediate change since this change affects multiple bots and gadgets like Twinkle.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Shall we rename currently active subpages from "deletion" to "discussion" right away? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The FfD template has |uploader=
for notifying the editor who uploaded the file that it is being discussed. This makes perfect sense when the deletion of the file is being discussed, which was always the case when FfD was "Files for Deletion". Is notifying th uploader really necessary, however, when the discussion of a non-free file's particular usage is being discussed? Whether the non-free usage satisfies the NFCC may have nothing to do with the original uploader because non-free files are often simply copied and pasted from one article to another by editors who fail to provide nfurs or who provide inappropriate nfurs. Such files are often OK for the article(s) where they have a valid nfur, so they are not at risk of deletion as an orphan. In such cases, notifying the uploader does not seem as necessary as notifying the editor(s) who may have been adding the file to multiple articles in a manner which doesn't satisfy the NFCC. Is there a way to use the template to notify someone other than the uploader in such cases? Perhaps by adding an new parameter such as "editor1", "editor2", etc.? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it might take a bit of searching to find the last editor to add the image, it could be an optional parameter for sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)The non-free [[:File]] you added to [[:Article]] has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~~~~
The instructions contain a couple of common rationales for deletion. It says that some of the rationales often are abbreviated as two letters. In my experience, the abbreviations are mostly used by inexperienced editors who make their first FFD nomination, probably because they have looked at the instructions when posting the request and thought that the abbreviations are commonly used. Would it be a good idea to remove the two-letter abbreviations from the instructions? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Should an uploader be trusted if they upload an image with a claim that it was created at a particular date? Should they be trusted if this is credible, and if they are an established and trusted editor?
Specifically, should a claim that an image (which looks old) is dated to "1930"? In the context of this image, that is then enough to justify a PD claim under {{ PD-Russia-2008}}.
Or should the uploader be required (on pain of CSD file deletion) to "prove" this date? (How?) Or to give a source for the image? (Which is still unlikely to answer the date issue)
My understanding, throughout WP's history, has been that AGF encourages us to trust an uploader on such a basis and to believe their claims. Only if we have some credible suspicion that either the image, its provenance, or the behaviour of the uploader, is dubious do we require any more than this.
The image in question is File:Taitsy.jpg, BTW
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, there has been consensus formed in a closed discussion on WP:VPPROP that was advertised on both WT:FFD and WT:NFCR, as well as renaming Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. The question now is ... how can this be accomplished? Here's the order that this probably needs to be done, considering that this change affects two other related items that need to be updated at some point to avoid "breaking things": Twinkle's functionality and AnomieBOT's tasks (since it updates and creates WP:FFD and its daily subpages):
How does this look? Am I missing anything, or is any of this in the wrong order? Steel1943 ( talk) 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the recommended procedure for non-admin closures in FFD? In NFCR there weren't usually any outcomes which required admin action, making NFCR closures easier to do. For FFD though I am not certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This template states that the file has been nominated for deletion. We should either change this to state "discussion", or create a different template for discussions about other outcomes than deletion. Note that {{ fdw}} already has been updated to state "discussion". -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a special way to nominate a really large number of files from the same uploader for deletion and could such a thing be possibly perceived as Wikihounding?
Up until now, I've been tagging non-free screenshots such as File:Newsopen.png with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}} because they simply do not satisfy WP:NFCC. Every file I've tagged to date (about 38) has eventually been deleted by an administrator, so I feel my assessment was correct. The uploader Strafidlo appears to be no longer active on Wikipedia, but it seems from their contribution history that they've uploaded lots of non-free logos/screenshots, such as File:Wzmy weather.JPG, since 2007. None of the screenshots I've seen so far even come close to satisfying WP:NFCC#8: they are mainly being used in "News operations" or "Newscast" sections like File:Kqca 10pm news.JPG and File:KCRA 3 News at 10 on KQCA My 58.jpg are being used in KQCA.
I think the ones which have been deleted so far are only the very tip of the iceberg. Just from looking at their contribution history, it appears there are many many more of these screenshots. Any comments on how best to proceed or whether doing so is even appropriate at all? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where or how to discuss this, but this category seems to be violating WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#9 since many of the flag images displayed are non-free. Strange thing is that the Category page is not showing up in any of the "file usage" section for the images. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I just added a File:Nashville Kats 1997-2001 Logo.png to FFD. I followed the instructions and clicked on the "this edit link" to create an FfD subsection which brought me to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6. I see this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6, but there is nothing listed on that page. The file I added is also not appearing in the WP:FFD#November 6" section of the FfD main page. In addition, the "this file's entry" link in the "Ffd" template leads to "Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6", and not "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6". Also, the back link on "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6" says "Wikipedia:Files for deletion", but redirects to "Wikipedia:File for discussion"
I'm not sure if I've done things correctly, so if I haven't could somebody please let me know what I should've done instead. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Stefan2: Same thing happened again at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 19 regarding another file I nominated. This time I clicked on the "Add a line to today's FfD." link in the "How to list a file for discussion" of the template. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I had no idea what was going wrong, so didn't want to go messing around with any templates. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Since the renaming of this noticeboard from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion", there has seemingly been some added confusion in regards to the nominator's purpose for nominating the file. Before, the action that the nominator believed should have been taken on the file was deletion of the file; that is no longer the case, especially since the nominator could also be nominating the file for removal from certain pages (if non-free) or to determine if a file marked non-free is actually free. In an effort to clarify this distinction, as well as make the discussions clearer for participants and discussion closers alike, I have boldly made this addition to the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. (After seeing this diff from Dthomsen8, I realized that given the previous state of the instructions, their concern seemed quite valid.) (Pinging parties who have, in one way or another, discussed this before, directly or indirectly: Explicit, Masem, Stefan2, Sfan00 IMG, Finnusertop, Kelly, Marchjuly, and Jo-Jo Eumerus.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Steel1943, I think the instructions should prompt users to first boldly make the changes they want and only bring them to the discussion if they are challenged. Currently the process is clogged up with many uncontroversial cases and it's 'files for sitting here for seven days' rather than for discussion. In particular: non-free files with invalid or missing rationales for some articles may be removed from those articles; non-free images with some other issues may be nominated for speedy deletion. There isn't a speedy deletion category for deleting unused unencyclopedic images (eg. users' profile images), but I don't feel like this is the right place for them either. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Stefan2, Marchjuly, and George Ho: (as well as whoever else may be interested): I just found the existence of {{ NFCC issue note}}. I've never seen this template used before. Could this template have some sort of use in WP:FFD, now that it is the noticeboard for WP:NFCR requests? (It looks as though its purpose is to be placed at the top of articles.) Steel1943 ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We should hold frequent drives of systematically going through Category:Articles with improper non-free content in discussion. I just discovered an article tagged since 2013 and implemented a consensus from over two years ago: [2]. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there some fast way to list pages with lots of non-free files for discussion? Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contains 12 non-free files while Federated state contains 15, all in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Back on topic: I've been having a blast manually going through
the list and each and every non-free image (identified by script) I encounter. I remove images that have no rationale at all for the article I browse, and leave an edit summary:
Removed non-free files without use rationales for this article on their file description pages ( WP:NFC#10c). Don't restore files without valid rationales, as invalid fair-use claims are copyright infringement.
This is effective in getting rid of 'fair-use' claims that do not even attempt to contain a claim thereof. This however leaves out some delicious cases for FFD. I have not removed images that are sprinkled across a dozen articles whith the same copy pasted rationale that simply says "illustration". If you want to, I can bring these cases to discussion.
After I'm done with all 400 articles ... I'd like to have this (reiterated from above): a list of those non-free files that are used in a ridiculous number of articles. (not articles that have many files, like the present list).
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs)
12:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please look at the images in List_of_Thai_flags#Provincial_flags, 2 of which I just found on Commons and added. While looking at discussions of the previously deleted images, I wonder if these were overlooked. I don't know who to ask over there. Perhaps the table should be trimmed, as well. Thanks! —PC -XT + 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a question about the the substitution of FFD template. Currently the "Create its FfD subsection" in the instructions on the main page say {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader= }} and {{subst:ffd|File:Name of the first file nominated}} should be used when nominating multiple files for the same reason. So, this is the practice I have followed when nominating multiple files such as
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 18#File:Philadelphia Fire patch.png,
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 22#File:B2m-evolution.jpg,
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23#File:Wichita B52s PASL logo.jpg, etc. However, the substituted templates are being removed by
Hellknowz with edits like
[3],
[4],
[5] and
[6] and replaced by {{
ffd}}. If the templates shouldn't be substituted in the first place, then the instructions on the main page should probably be updated. Moreover, one problem with simply replacing them with "ffd" templates is that all the links are broken and there is no |log=
information provided, so clicking on "this file's entry" in the template leads to WP:FFD and not the the thread where the file is actually being discussed. This could lead some to mistakenly assume that the FFD discussion has been concluded. Anyway, I would like some clarification of whether these templates should be substituted. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|log=
parameter and I checked the above files at the time and they didn't link to a specific log date (i.e. {{ffd|log=2016 January 29}}
), just the main page, so simply {{ffd}}
resulted in almost the same link (except with the anchor to exact file's line). I decided to not add it, because that's how the original nomination did it. Unfortunately, they just fell off the main log due to the date, but they would have before this too. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)|log=
to fix the links with
this edit to
File:La Fiera FC 2013 logo.png, but the text in the template currently reads as if it was originally tagged on January 28, 2016 and not December 23, 2015. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|log=
should suffice and I see you added it to that file sucessfully now. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)WP:NFCR was shut down a couple of months ago, but there are still pending discussions that are all stale. Could an admin who works here regularly please go thru closing down those discussions? There are about 35. If something needs more discussion before taking action, I suggest bringing it here. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Ulster Defence Regiment is currently a GA nominee, and one of the article's images being debated at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_19#File:The_Yellow_Card.jpg. Much has been said there, but debate seems to have trickled off. The uploader has requested closure so that the article can move forward. I can't close the FFD, since I left my own opinions there (and I wasn't at my most tactful, sadly). Does anyone want to make a determination, for the sake of the GA-nom? – Quadell ( talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A vast number of bitmap images have been listed for deletion (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 3) on the grounds that they have been "obsoleted by vector version". These deletions are all (AFAICS) coming from User:Sfan00 IMG.
We should not delete these. I know of no policy reason to delete them, at Commons there is a very clear consensus to not delete them.
We should not delete images for no other reason than "obsoleted by vector version". Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
only for certain bots (like ContinuityBot) to rule they didn't meet Commons requirements. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's perfectly valid for us at en.wiki to delete unused and superseded bitmaps, so long as (1) the replacement SVG is accurate and appropriate, (2) the bitmap is not needed for a cc-by or GFDL audit trail, and (3) procedure at FFD is followed. On the other hand, it's also perfectly valid for anyone to copy these images to Commons so long as Commons wants them -- this often happens when such images are nominated at FFD, and the case is closed as "deleted as F8". My only strong request is that if you are going to move an "obsoleted" bitmap to Commons, please add categories to it there so that it's not just another potentially-useless and unfindable image. (Just use the same categories the SVG uses.) – Quadell ( talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a project to replace NFU images with free use ones at [Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 August 2013]. In the process I've inadvertently used images which didn't fall into the copyright permission I was using. I've immediately reverted those images but I think I should call on someone to speedily delete the ones I used in error until such times as I can secure permission for their use. The files in question are all tagged as "free use image" or "free use file" and can be found at the following pages: File:18th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:17th Lancers Badge.jpg, File:19th Royal Hussars Badge.jpg, File:1st Life Guards Badge.jpg, File:15th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:16th Lancers Badge.jpg, File:14th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:13th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:26th Hussars Badge.jpg, and File:12th Lancers Badge.jpg. Sorry for the mixup. This only came to light when I spoke to the chap I get my military badges from. He informed me they weren't pictures he had taken. Some of the badges I uploaded were fine and aren't affected by this. Others will be going up tomorrow with the correct permission. In the meantime I've got some grovelling to do with a certain copyright holder. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that the template used to add nominations to the list be stripped of the "link header" function? Just below the header, the file is linked, so is it necessary to also link it in the header? Some editors like myself prefer the "right-click to edit" rather than "edit links". When the linked section header is right-clicked, all one gets is the usual choice box that one gets when one right-clicks a link. To edit the page, one has to go back to the higher level "date" header and right-click it. Then one must hunt for the particular file one wants to edit. If the filename headers are stripped of their links, then this problem would be solved:
A right-click of the unlinked version in a header will allow editors to edit the individual file entry instead of the entire contents under the higher "Date" header. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well I just discovered by experiment that my major concern here is unfounded. I played with it and found that if I right-click the page anywhere to the right of the section header on the same line as the header, even all the way to the right edge of the page, the edit screen for just that file opens. So I don't really have to open the entire edit page to leave an opinion or comment. Now, I still don't see the need for two links for each file, one in the section header and one just below that header, but at least I've found that there is a way to edit an individual entry that does not require my jumping thru hoops. Joys to all! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. Oh! and I won't edit the links out of the section headers; however, I would support that if others want it. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
This week amount of participants has been very low. What gives? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I assume people are aware of the huge backlog? There are uncontroversial noms from July that haven't been closed, and whole pages of noms from over a month ago that are barely touched. I started closing some of these, but it's quite a lot. Have a bunch of FFD regulars retired or something? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 12:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Since I cannot nominate it myself, perhaps someone can do so on my behalf:
Reason: Deliberately poor quality photograph, originally illustrating hoax article Glass jar, now unused. 86.169.184.130 ( talk) 03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Weather Machine (sculpture) is a Featured Article candidate, and uses 3 freely-licensed photos of a 1988 sculpture. However, since the sculpture is copyrighted, the photos are non-free derivative works, and are nominated for deletion on Commons. It is certainly acceptable to use a single non-free photograph of the sculpture in an article about that sculpture, but there is discussion about whether multiple non-free photos can be used. (It is a dynamic sculpture, which looks different on different days.) If you are willing to comment, your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Weather Machine (sculpture)#Use of non-free images in this article. – Quadell ( talk) 14:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Can somone recover this file File:Machine Head Halo.jpg ? Thanks XXN ( talk) 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As I'm sure any regular editors/nominators/commenters at FFD will be aware, this page is massively backlogged. I'm starting to work through it, and luckily most nominations are uncontroversial orphaned junk deletion. However, I do now and then come across more controversial, contested nominations, but for which their discussions have not reached consensus, last being commented on in October. Whilst I could close them all as No consensus, I'm reluctant to do so as we're talking about a large number of potential copyright/policy violations here, as they tend to be NFCC disputes. Hence, would it be OK to allow the relisting of these nominations, adding the {{ relist}} nomination and placing them on 'Todays' log? This would also bring us in-line with other deletion venues such as AFD and CFD which use a similar procedure. What do other FFD regulars think - I'm pinging the most prolific nominators I've seen, sorry if I missed you: @ Kelly:, @ Stefan2:, @ Sfan00 IMG:. Thanks, Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if the following could be modified.
old text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.
new text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or there is at least one vote of support and no objections to deletion have been raised.
reason: The present text says that a file can be deleted if no one objects to it, even if no one voices support for the deletion.
note: I made this request after seeing this undeletion request. If this change is accepted, is it recommended that it occurs after December 18th. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header revolving around the use of {{ pufc}} in the WP:PUF process. As the header talk page most likely has very few watchers, I am dropping a note here to get relevant discussion from the file namespace community. -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 14:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if this is covered somewhere, but is there a procedure for nominating several files by the same uploader, or does it have to be done one by one? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious about our deletion policies regarding works thought to be in the public domain. Crisco 1492 recently led an effort to delete File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg because they challenged the long-standing belief that the image is PD in the US. They did not, however, provide any evidence that the image was ever copyrighted. It was apparently published in 1967 without a CRN, and there is no reason to believe that the image was registered within ten years of its initial release. How can an image be deleted because nobody has proven that its not PD? The notion that the onus is on editors to assert a negative seems like a logic fail—how can we prove that something did not happen? I understand the practice of assuming on the safe side, but after several editors have demonstrated a degree of due diligence, why do we assume them to be wrong absent any evidence that they are wrong? Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In Category:Wikipedia possibly unfree files, we have dated categories for possibly unfree files. However, we do not have any dated categories for files for deletion. Should we have that? Today, I accidentally noticed a file, File:嘉顺皇后.jpg, which was nominated for deletion back in November last year. The file had accidentally been deleted from the daily log page by Cyberpower678 ( talk · contribs), and this remained overlooked until now. With dated categories, we would have spotted this earlier as we would have had a category with files but no seemingly open discussions on the daily log page. There might be other similar examples out there somewhere which currently are hard to find. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to delete the earlier version of File:Gaohuaide_1797.jpg that I uploaded back in December 2012, but I couldn't figure out how to proceed. Thanks in advance. Timmyshin ( talk) 05:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard ( talk) 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
How should I handle an image like File:WilliamDickersonDetentionFacility.jpg, which is missing info here but was anyway transferred to Commons under the same name? Instead of using a tool or bot, the user re-uploaded the image and referenced enwp as the source. How can I generate the "original upload" and file description info to preserve the attribution history at its Commons location? – czar 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I requested deletion or changing licences to CC BY-NC-ND of those photos; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emin_Kul.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heart_Of_Istanbul_From_Air.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levent_%282011%29.jpg on 23 August 2015, nobody contacted to me and images are still there, what should I do?
-- Ail Subway ( talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on whether or not Wikipedia:Non-free content review's functionality should be merged into WP:FFD and then WP:NFCR shut down. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of nominations closed recently regarding File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG and File:Clark County Courthouse Indiana 002.JPG - there are other examples. These are files that were tagged with {{ Keep local}} by the uploader years ago, but are no longer used in any Wikipedia articles. The debates were closed as "keep" because of the Keep Local tag. I'm wondering if there's any real policy reason to keep copies of these types of images on the local project. The current presumption seems to default to "keep" even if nobody defends retention of the file.
I've run across other situations where the uploader of images with the "Keep local" tag has obviously retired or been absent for years. In those cases is it all right for any editor to remove the tag?
Any clarification/insight is appreciated. Kelly hi! 08:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ PD-Pre1978}} and {{ PD-US-no notice}} have been nominated for discussion under WP:TfD -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There has been consensus to move Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice is placed here instead of making an immediate change since this change affects multiple bots and gadgets like Twinkle.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Shall we rename currently active subpages from "deletion" to "discussion" right away? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The FfD template has |uploader=
for notifying the editor who uploaded the file that it is being discussed. This makes perfect sense when the deletion of the file is being discussed, which was always the case when FfD was "Files for Deletion". Is notifying th uploader really necessary, however, when the discussion of a non-free file's particular usage is being discussed? Whether the non-free usage satisfies the NFCC may have nothing to do with the original uploader because non-free files are often simply copied and pasted from one article to another by editors who fail to provide nfurs or who provide inappropriate nfurs. Such files are often OK for the article(s) where they have a valid nfur, so they are not at risk of deletion as an orphan. In such cases, notifying the uploader does not seem as necessary as notifying the editor(s) who may have been adding the file to multiple articles in a manner which doesn't satisfy the NFCC. Is there a way to use the template to notify someone other than the uploader in such cases? Perhaps by adding an new parameter such as "editor1", "editor2", etc.? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it might take a bit of searching to find the last editor to add the image, it could be an optional parameter for sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)The non-free [[:File]] you added to [[:Article]] has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~~~~
The instructions contain a couple of common rationales for deletion. It says that some of the rationales often are abbreviated as two letters. In my experience, the abbreviations are mostly used by inexperienced editors who make their first FFD nomination, probably because they have looked at the instructions when posting the request and thought that the abbreviations are commonly used. Would it be a good idea to remove the two-letter abbreviations from the instructions? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Should an uploader be trusted if they upload an image with a claim that it was created at a particular date? Should they be trusted if this is credible, and if they are an established and trusted editor?
Specifically, should a claim that an image (which looks old) is dated to "1930"? In the context of this image, that is then enough to justify a PD claim under {{ PD-Russia-2008}}.
Or should the uploader be required (on pain of CSD file deletion) to "prove" this date? (How?) Or to give a source for the image? (Which is still unlikely to answer the date issue)
My understanding, throughout WP's history, has been that AGF encourages us to trust an uploader on such a basis and to believe their claims. Only if we have some credible suspicion that either the image, its provenance, or the behaviour of the uploader, is dubious do we require any more than this.
The image in question is File:Taitsy.jpg, BTW
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, there has been consensus formed in a closed discussion on WP:VPPROP that was advertised on both WT:FFD and WT:NFCR, as well as renaming Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. The question now is ... how can this be accomplished? Here's the order that this probably needs to be done, considering that this change affects two other related items that need to be updated at some point to avoid "breaking things": Twinkle's functionality and AnomieBOT's tasks (since it updates and creates WP:FFD and its daily subpages):
How does this look? Am I missing anything, or is any of this in the wrong order? Steel1943 ( talk) 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the recommended procedure for non-admin closures in FFD? In NFCR there weren't usually any outcomes which required admin action, making NFCR closures easier to do. For FFD though I am not certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This template states that the file has been nominated for deletion. We should either change this to state "discussion", or create a different template for discussions about other outcomes than deletion. Note that {{ fdw}} already has been updated to state "discussion". -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a special way to nominate a really large number of files from the same uploader for deletion and could such a thing be possibly perceived as Wikihounding?
Up until now, I've been tagging non-free screenshots such as File:Newsopen.png with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}} because they simply do not satisfy WP:NFCC. Every file I've tagged to date (about 38) has eventually been deleted by an administrator, so I feel my assessment was correct. The uploader Strafidlo appears to be no longer active on Wikipedia, but it seems from their contribution history that they've uploaded lots of non-free logos/screenshots, such as File:Wzmy weather.JPG, since 2007. None of the screenshots I've seen so far even come close to satisfying WP:NFCC#8: they are mainly being used in "News operations" or "Newscast" sections like File:Kqca 10pm news.JPG and File:KCRA 3 News at 10 on KQCA My 58.jpg are being used in KQCA.
I think the ones which have been deleted so far are only the very tip of the iceberg. Just from looking at their contribution history, it appears there are many many more of these screenshots. Any comments on how best to proceed or whether doing so is even appropriate at all? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where or how to discuss this, but this category seems to be violating WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#9 since many of the flag images displayed are non-free. Strange thing is that the Category page is not showing up in any of the "file usage" section for the images. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I just added a File:Nashville Kats 1997-2001 Logo.png to FFD. I followed the instructions and clicked on the "this edit link" to create an FfD subsection which brought me to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6. I see this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6, but there is nothing listed on that page. The file I added is also not appearing in the WP:FFD#November 6" section of the FfD main page. In addition, the "this file's entry" link in the "Ffd" template leads to "Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6", and not "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6". Also, the back link on "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6" says "Wikipedia:Files for deletion", but redirects to "Wikipedia:File for discussion"
I'm not sure if I've done things correctly, so if I haven't could somebody please let me know what I should've done instead. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Stefan2: Same thing happened again at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 19 regarding another file I nominated. This time I clicked on the "Add a line to today's FfD." link in the "How to list a file for discussion" of the template. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I had no idea what was going wrong, so didn't want to go messing around with any templates. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Since the renaming of this noticeboard from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion", there has seemingly been some added confusion in regards to the nominator's purpose for nominating the file. Before, the action that the nominator believed should have been taken on the file was deletion of the file; that is no longer the case, especially since the nominator could also be nominating the file for removal from certain pages (if non-free) or to determine if a file marked non-free is actually free. In an effort to clarify this distinction, as well as make the discussions clearer for participants and discussion closers alike, I have boldly made this addition to the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. (After seeing this diff from Dthomsen8, I realized that given the previous state of the instructions, their concern seemed quite valid.) (Pinging parties who have, in one way or another, discussed this before, directly or indirectly: Explicit, Masem, Stefan2, Sfan00 IMG, Finnusertop, Kelly, Marchjuly, and Jo-Jo Eumerus.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Steel1943, I think the instructions should prompt users to first boldly make the changes they want and only bring them to the discussion if they are challenged. Currently the process is clogged up with many uncontroversial cases and it's 'files for sitting here for seven days' rather than for discussion. In particular: non-free files with invalid or missing rationales for some articles may be removed from those articles; non-free images with some other issues may be nominated for speedy deletion. There isn't a speedy deletion category for deleting unused unencyclopedic images (eg. users' profile images), but I don't feel like this is the right place for them either. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Stefan2, Marchjuly, and George Ho: (as well as whoever else may be interested): I just found the existence of {{ NFCC issue note}}. I've never seen this template used before. Could this template have some sort of use in WP:FFD, now that it is the noticeboard for WP:NFCR requests? (It looks as though its purpose is to be placed at the top of articles.) Steel1943 ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We should hold frequent drives of systematically going through Category:Articles with improper non-free content in discussion. I just discovered an article tagged since 2013 and implemented a consensus from over two years ago: [2]. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there some fast way to list pages with lots of non-free files for discussion? Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contains 12 non-free files while Federated state contains 15, all in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Back on topic: I've been having a blast manually going through
the list and each and every non-free image (identified by script) I encounter. I remove images that have no rationale at all for the article I browse, and leave an edit summary:
Removed non-free files without use rationales for this article on their file description pages ( WP:NFC#10c). Don't restore files without valid rationales, as invalid fair-use claims are copyright infringement.
This is effective in getting rid of 'fair-use' claims that do not even attempt to contain a claim thereof. This however leaves out some delicious cases for FFD. I have not removed images that are sprinkled across a dozen articles whith the same copy pasted rationale that simply says "illustration". If you want to, I can bring these cases to discussion.
After I'm done with all 400 articles ... I'd like to have this (reiterated from above): a list of those non-free files that are used in a ridiculous number of articles. (not articles that have many files, like the present list).
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs)
12:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please look at the images in List_of_Thai_flags#Provincial_flags, 2 of which I just found on Commons and added. While looking at discussions of the previously deleted images, I wonder if these were overlooked. I don't know who to ask over there. Perhaps the table should be trimmed, as well. Thanks! —PC -XT + 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a question about the the substitution of FFD template. Currently the "Create its FfD subsection" in the instructions on the main page say {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader= }} and {{subst:ffd|File:Name of the first file nominated}} should be used when nominating multiple files for the same reason. So, this is the practice I have followed when nominating multiple files such as
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 18#File:Philadelphia Fire patch.png,
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 22#File:B2m-evolution.jpg,
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23#File:Wichita B52s PASL logo.jpg, etc. However, the substituted templates are being removed by
Hellknowz with edits like
[3],
[4],
[5] and
[6] and replaced by {{
ffd}}. If the templates shouldn't be substituted in the first place, then the instructions on the main page should probably be updated. Moreover, one problem with simply replacing them with "ffd" templates is that all the links are broken and there is no |log=
information provided, so clicking on "this file's entry" in the template leads to WP:FFD and not the the thread where the file is actually being discussed. This could lead some to mistakenly assume that the FFD discussion has been concluded. Anyway, I would like some clarification of whether these templates should be substituted. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|log=
parameter and I checked the above files at the time and they didn't link to a specific log date (i.e. {{ffd|log=2016 January 29}}
), just the main page, so simply {{ffd}}
resulted in almost the same link (except with the anchor to exact file's line). I decided to not add it, because that's how the original nomination did it. Unfortunately, they just fell off the main log due to the date, but they would have before this too. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)|log=
to fix the links with
this edit to
File:La Fiera FC 2013 logo.png, but the text in the template currently reads as if it was originally tagged on January 28, 2016 and not December 23, 2015. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|log=
should suffice and I see you added it to that file sucessfully now. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)WP:NFCR was shut down a couple of months ago, but there are still pending discussions that are all stale. Could an admin who works here regularly please go thru closing down those discussions? There are about 35. If something needs more discussion before taking action, I suggest bringing it here. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)