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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
My question is where {{ Oldffdfull}}, and the now-defunct {{ Non-free reviewed}} and {{ Non-free reviewed no consensus}} should be posted now that NFCR is no more and FfD handles both. The Ffd one seems to always be posted on the file's talk page while the NFCR ones seems to have always been posted on the file's description page (sometimes at the top or the page and sometimes below the copyright notice). If there's only a single template, then it's probably makes no difference where it's posted. It might be a little confusing, however, for files tagged with multiple templates for multiple discussions.
For example, File:Czech Republic FA.png was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#File:Czech Republic FA.png in November 2013 and a "Non-free reviewed" template was added to the file's description page here. The same file was also discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Czech Republic FA.png in November 2015 and the "Oldffdfull" template was added to the file's talk page here. The NFCR template is the one that people are going to notice first since that is on the file's page, and not many people will have any reason to check the file's talk page for another template. So, they will assume that the file can be used in Czech Republic national football team, Czech Republic national under-21 football team, Czech Republic women's national football team as well as Football Association of the Czech Republic even though that is contrary to the result of the subsequent FfD discussion.
There's sort of a similar thing currently happening with File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The file was first discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, only no "non-free reviewed" template was added after the close. The file was discussed again at NFCR in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg (for slightly different reasons), and the close was "no consensus" and the file was tagged with "Non-free reviewed no consensus". The file is now currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg which means an "Oldffdfull" template will be added to the file's talk page after the close. If the "non-free reviewed" for the first NFCR had been added, you'd have three separate templates for three separate discussions with possibly three separate closes for the same file. Something similar could possibly happen for some of the NFCR discussions in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71 tagged with "NFCR no consensus" if someday they are discussed at FfD.
Perhaps its time that the placement, etc. of file related templates be standardized to ensure that they are all posted on the file's talk page. Maybe a Template:Old FfD multi template needs to be created so that all prior NFCR/FfD discussions can be combined for easy reference. I'm not sure what was done prior to the merge when a file was nominated for deletion at FfD multiple times; maybe such a thing never happened since both "keep" and "delete" are quite definitive results. However, since FfD now discusses NFCC issues it seems possible that the same non-free file could possibly be discussed multiple times. Maybe the first time ends in no consensus, so the file is nominated again. Maybe the first time disallowed a particular usage, but the situation has changed and so the consensus has changed as well. Maybe something new is added to the NFCC, as seems to have been the case with "File:Czech Republic FA.png", so that a usage previously allowed is no longer considered acceptable. There seem to be may other possibilities which might lead to the same file being discussed again. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion relevant to Files for Discussion is currently ongoing at the village pump. The topic is Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, a user has continued to remove the file File:BBC First.png from the article BBC First (Australia), giving reasons on my talk page including "specific non-free use rationale is needed for each usage" but suggesting if I were to write one for usage on this particular article, it would almost certainly fail anyway. While the file has the licence of {{ Non-free logo}} its Commons entry uses both {{ PD-textlogo}} and {{ Trademarked}}. I'm unsure how best to proceed, as clearly it should be acceptable for the logo to be used in the article in the infobox. -- Whats new? (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that I recently made some additions to the closing instructions to help better encapsulate the new functionality of FFD including setting an expectation that a closing administration closing a discussion to anything other than delete or keep has an understanding of copyright laws to make sure that consensus does not obviously contradict the laws. I also added instructions about how to relist discussions. Feel free to add anything else which I may have not added. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The template syntax is described on multiple pages: {{ ffd|log=2024 June 23}}. However, it seems that the date is cached and that you sometimes see the wrong date. For example, if I go to {{ ffd}} and check the documentation on that page, then I see today's date when I'm logged in, but yesterday's date when I'm logged out. This is confusing and could result in wrong dates being added to the template, in particular when the template is added by an IP.
I have made an attempt to automatically return a dated template by substituting the template. If you use {{ subst:ffd/sandbox}}, then this automatically returns a dated sandbox template. Is there any opposition against including this feature in the main template? The documentation could then be changed to recommend substitution, and we then do not need to worry about cached copies of pages which do not show the current date. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
If you list a file on FFD using Twinkle, then Twinkle removes everything else from the discussion page. See the history of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 11: this has happened several times today. If someone lists a file using Twinkle, remember to fix the page after this. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Per this discussion, consensus has been formed to merge Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files into Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Here's my high-level idea for the immediate steps to merge WP:PUF into WP:FFD and the order which these steps should be taken:
...In all honesty, this merge will most likely not be as complicated as the WP:NFCR merge to FFD since no page was/will be renamed as a result of the merge consensus. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
PUF uses a lot of templates which need to be taken care of:
Are there other templates to take care of? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on a possible entry for FFD (once PUF is wholly closed) is here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Template:Wrong license might have slipped through the cracks during the clean up related to the PUF/FFD merge. If it's just a question of fixing the link/updating the text so that the target page in FFD, then I should be able to do that. However, I've never edited a "maintenance template" like this before so I'm not sure if there's more involved. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So I'd help with the backlog if I didn't have to manually paste the templates. Does anyone have a working FfD tool? Mine's dead czar 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
One of the commons themes I see in the backlog are discussions with a consensus to "convert to non-free", as in they need a FUR. I imagine that these are being held up because it would require the closer or someone to update the image's tags. Does this fall on the closer? Because it's holding up discussion processing. If instead we had a tag or instructions to close as "missing FUR" (read: some form of delayed speedy F6), we would get through these a lot faster. czar 20:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Following up to this COI page discussion, basically there's concerns about the usage of the Commons file File:Ihs-logo.svg. Is there a place to discuss the usage of Commons files? I created a listing at WP:FFD at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_July_10#File:Ihs-logo.svg but it seems like it's considered outside of its scope. Should FFD handle dispute about the usage of images that are hosted on Commons? Else, should it be handled as a content dispute on a page-by-page basis? Alternatively, we could host an RFC on the file image's talk page or something. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move going on at Template talk:Cfd-notify involving moving the template Template:fdw (and other such templates). Pppery ( talk) 23:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Are there delsort templates specifically designed for FFD? Would it be problematic to use those designed for AFD if there are not? Right now, there are templates for the file's page, the uploader's page, image captions, but there does not seem to be anything specifically for the top of the articles where the files being discussed are being used. It does say in the FFD instructions that "consider (...) adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion", but this seems optional and probably not followed through very much (I hardly go this far). Maybe if there was some template to add to the article which was part of the ffd2 template (prehaps as |article=
or something) or a delsort template which would add the discussion to a WikiProject's deletion sorting page, it might get more editors involved in the discussion and help eliminate concerns that decisions are being made by a few who do not necessarily represent the views of the community. It also might help reduce the number of "I didn't know" and "It's unfair" comments that often pop up when somebody tries to re-add a file previously removed as a result of FFD. The number of files being discussed has increased due to the recent merges of NFCR and PUF into FFD. On some days there may be only a few discussions going on, but on others there may be well over a 100. Not all of the files being discussed are being used in articles, but many are so it might help establish a consensus more quickly and reduce the backload if more people are involved. Of course, the consensus should still be based on relevant policy so maybe a guide like
WP:ATA could be created which is specific to files. How to treat files not tagged with a WikiProject banner and files whose WikiProjects do not have a delsort template would also have to be figured out, but that can be done through discussion. I've linked this discussion at
WT:DELSORT, but I am also interested in how regular participants, including any admins who close FFD discussions, feel about something like this. Thanks in advance. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
|article=
or |wikiproject=
to it) so that templates can be added to articles/article talk pages or the relevant WikiProjects page. I understand notifications can be added manually, but those are optional and adding them doesn't seem to be common practice. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I participated in the remaining May and June discussions so they just need someone to flush/close them out or relist. I handled the rest. czar 17:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if {{ Oldffdfull}} should be tweaked a bit to clarify that a "keep" vote for a non-free image does not necessarily mean any additional non-free image use is automatically NFCC compliant. Before WP:NFCR was merged into FFD, non-free use discussion took place there and {{ Non-free reviewed}} was added to closed discussions. Non-free use discusion do not necessarily mean that an image is either kept or deleted; it is often the case that multiple uses of an image are being discussed and the result is that use is acceptable for some, but not for others. Perhaps additional wording should be adding to the "Oldffdfull" template to reflect this. It might also be a good idea to add something to No. 9 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines explaining about this. My concern is that simply adding "keep" without specifying which article(s) non-free use has been deemed to be OK might mislead others it to assuming that non-free use has been deemed compliant for all future use. As it is, many seem to think that simply adding a non-free use rationale template to an file automatically equals "being NFCC compliant" when that is very only dealing with WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
So many images have been nominated for discussion. Yet so very little participation. What gives? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Attendance or lack of it is exploited to delete images as "no objection to deletion"seems to be assuming a bit of bad faith on the part of others. I think it's better to assume that the person nominating a file for discussion truly believes that its use does not comply with relevant policy or guidelines. Their interpretation may be wrong for sure, but that is for the community to figure out and for the closing admin to assess. Even freely licensed image use is not really automatic by default and there has to be a proper encyclopedic reason for using any image file. Things just happen to be trickier when it comes to non-free image use because there are 10 fairly specific criterion which need to be satisfied in addition to WP:IUP. As Majora points out, the lack of comments could simply because there has been a precedent established through previous FFD discussions where a particular type of use is not really considered acceptable or the result is obvious. Some files are nominated for discussion at FFD, when they could have been tagged with a speedy deletion template instead.
Can anyone here help me fix this template? I always copy and paste the wrong dates. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Any input you may have on improving the bot, or whether the bot should run at all, would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC -- Majora ( talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Do we have some mechanism for notifying enwp article watchers that related files are up for deletion? With FfD, we add in-line tags on an article so editors can come to the discussion, but do we do the same when a Commons image is up for deletion? If so, I haven't seen it, but I think it would be useful. It's not like the Commons discussion is any less relevant than the enwp FfD discussion. czar 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
How are we handling 2D scans of the text-only circle stickers in the middle of vinyl LP records? Are we saying they have no compositional originality? What about labels from the UK and its low threshold of originality? I know there have been a few cases for precedent, but I haven't kept track. Might be useful to have a template for these cases, both for us and for readers czar 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus to merge the WP:NFCR into "Files for deletion" led to formation of "Files for discussion" in October 2015. WP:PUF was also merged per consensus in April 2016. Now I would like your feedback on the current process, "Files for discussion". What are your thoughts about this? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Files for discussion nominations were mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Mass listings with identical rationales, disruptive by SmokeyJoe. The nominations by とある白い猫 began on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 6, and by my estimate about 200 files have now been express closed as delete mostly by Fastily.— Godsy ( TALK CONT) 10:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a tool for batch nominations to FfD? Like commons:Help:VisualFileChange.js for enwp? czar 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Throwing this here to get comments from file namespace folks. What are your thoughts on a bot that goes through Category:Non-free images for NFUR review and marks images as having a rationale if they have a completed rationale?
Example: Consider {{ Non-free use rationale logo}}. That template is "complete" when it has its "Article" and "Use" parameters completed, as those are the only mandatory parameters. I could create a temporary tracking category to track all completed non-free use rationales for logos and then run a bot through to ensure that all transclusions of {{ Non-free logo}} on those file description pages have the "image has rationale" parameter set to yes.
The goal would be to clear out a lot of the crap in the 180k+ NFUR review category to allow us to actually review non-free files without appropriate rationales. Thoughts on this? ~ Rob13 Talk 23:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled on File:17 High Park Road.png this today which is being used under fair use. To my mind this image is easily re-created by simply going to the location in question and taking a free photograph. There's nothing to indicate that this building is no longer there (i.e. that a new and free image would be difficult/impossible to get). I was wondering if someone could give me some advice on whether these kinds of FU images are legitimate. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Backlog_of_unpatrolled_files for two proposals related to file patrol. Cenarium ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Our procedure for relisting discussions says that the discussion on the old log page can either be collapsed or removed altogether (since the content is moved to the new log page, and is linked from the old log page). TfD appears to have a preference of removing the discussion. I'm testing @ Evad37's new XfD closer and wanted to see whether we should have a preference for collapsing or removing the discussion on the old log. czar 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Davey2010. Can you revert your edit back to "files for d"? There are subpages of formerly "Files for deletion", like Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 21. I appreciate it. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As said previously at #RFC on routine file deletion, the status WP:ROD is downgraded from "guideline" to "proposed". Also, the instructions were removed as the discussion is reopened. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 25 February 2017 (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.
Background: As of right now, unencyclopedic files are nominated for deletion through Files for discussion, and almost all are deleted after waiting a week. There's almost never participation at these discussions beyond the nominator and the deleting administrator. FFD is currently filled with such nominations, and these low-importance nominations make it substantially more difficult for our experts on copyright matters to find the nominations that require their attention.
Proposal: Files would be tagged with an alternative "routine file deletion" template, and, if the tag is not contested within 7 days (the current period of FFD before a nomination may be closed), the file is deleted. This proposal aims at separating these routine deletions from more advanced discussions that need additional comments. A list of files currently nominated for routine file deletion will be maintained by a bot at a subpage transcluded on WP:FFD to ensure such files receive the same visibility as other FFD nominations. This is intended purely as a change in administrative workflow to ensure editors can find the more controversial deletion nominations or queries about a file's copyright status.
Definition: An unencyclopedic file must meet one of the following two criteria:
Administrator instructions: When closing a routine file deletion, an administrator must verify the file meets the definition of an unencyclopedic file. If the file is unencyclopedic but otherwise fits the scope of Commons, it should be moved to Commons rather than deleted. Examples of such files may be files which are unlikely to benefit the English Wikipedia in any way but may benefit sister projects. If the nomination appears likely to be controversial, the administrator should procedurally nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Otherwise, the file may be deleted citing "routine file deletion" as the rationale. Files deleted routinely are eligible to be undeleted upon request.
Should the workflow of FFD be split between routine deletions and full deletion discussions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging
Train2104,
Fastily, and
MrX to notify them about the reopening via relisting that the discussion is reopened.
George Ho (
talk) 03:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 03:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? An adminbot to delete all old file revisions of images in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old if there's only one editor in the file history (to filter out cases where the file is later changed to non-free, which might require admin review). It seems pretty safe to automate deleting old revisions of rescaled images marked as non-free by the original uploader. ~ Rob13 Talk 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
for version in todelete:
is the one that says to go through each individual version. Try adding "print version" under it.
Dat Guy
Talk
Contribs 21:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
How about dropping the 'unencyclopedic' clause entirely, and reframing this as an extension to PROD as suggested in the RfC? As with article PROD and AfD, I would imagine that contentious file PROD cases would inevitably find their way to FfD. - FASTILY 01:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Iazyges. After reading Nyttend's comments, maybe we should do one of two options: 1) re-ask ourselves and others whether we should retain or remove the "unencyclopedic" definition, or 2) suspend workshopping the "unencyclopedic" criterion and then focus on expanding the PROD instead. We can't do both at the same time. Thoughts? George Ho ( talk) 02:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so dropping the "unencyclopedic" definition discussion and workshopping an extension of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (PROD), would the File PROD adopt all the criteria used in the current PROD (not previously PROD'd, no prior deletion discussions, no prior undeletions)? Should it exclude non-free files? Would the original uploader need to be notified? Etc. czar 03:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object to a the same criteria as article PROD, but require it to not be used in article space? I have no hard connection to unencyclopedic, and no issue with PRODing them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
New discussion WT:proposed deletion#File PROD has started. George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
As the backlog starts to slowly climb again, wanted to leave a little PSA that User:Evad37/XFDcloser, a new XFD script, works great with FfD both for closing and relisting. It's still in development, so leave a comment on its talk page if you have an issue. czar 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A recent Supreme Court ruling in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands will affect files on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The ruling essentially states that any design elements of a useful article (clothing, cars, etc.) can by copyrightable if (i) the design elements can be separated from the useful article itself into a 2D or 3D work of art, and (ii) that work of art would be copyrightable. Note that the first prong of that test is quite broad, as interpreted by the Court, basically stating that if you can take a picture of something, that's "separating" it from the useful article. Dissenting opinions in the 6–2 decision stated the obvious that just taking a picture of clothing doesn't make it not clothing, as the shape of the useful article is still present, but sadly the majority did not agree. The short of it is that many more images will now be free after applying de minimis when that principle wasn't necessary before, and images that focus primarily on useful articles may become non-free and fall under the non-free content criteria.
Full text of ruling: [1] SCOTUSblog summary: [2]
Along these lines, I have a bot task proposed that will slightly alter the text in ~400 non-free use rationales to note that the uniforms in question are under both trademark and copyright protection, not just trademark. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 35. ~ Rob13 Talk 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
For those admins who know what they're doing in the file namespace, help in that category would be ... well, helpful. There have been hundreds of files in there for over a week now, with it peaking sometimes above 1,500 files at a time. I've been trying to keep up, but there are many files being resized by a bot (catching up after a period of no active resizing bot, I believe), and I'm one person. There are a good 3,500 files that will be dumped in the category over the next 7 days, so it's not slowing down anytime soon. ~ Rob13 Talk 09:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Creating_a_new_PD-US-1923_template. ~ Rob13 Talk 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a couple Wikimania presentations that are relevant to the file process on enwiki. They are currently proposals. If you may attend Wikimania and would be interested in attending these presentations, feel free to indicate as such on the proposal pages. If anyone wants more information about these, leave me a talk page message.
I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the Copyright for Dummies slides; if you see something that could make them more effective or something missing, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob13 Talk 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#File PROD agreed to apply PROD-ding to files. The change may likely reduce backlogging of FFD noms in the future. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: The File PROD has been implemented into Wikipedia:Proposed deletion ( diffs). Feel free to PROD on files, but Twinkle is not yet updated. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
File:SelectTV logo.png and File:Petula Clark - Downtown 88.jpg are the first files to be PROD-tagged, one orphaned and one still used. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Notifying Majora, Fastily, XXN, Jon Kolbert, and Kelly about the updates. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Files for discussion. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to distinguish between multiple FFD nominations of the same file? For example, something like {{ afdx}}. I occassionally come accross FFD discussions where the file in question had been nominated before and think this might be helpful to know. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose to change the {{ Ffd}} template to the version currently at Template:Ffd/sandbox, created by @ KATMAKROFAN: to match the other deletion discussion templates. Any objections? – Train2104 ( t • c) 13:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice that Jax 0677 ( talk · contribs) has been doing a lot of relisting at FFD lately. I thought that in cases where the nominator implicitly or explicitly seeks deletion (or reduction in FUR scope), a lack of participation with no objections raised is treated the same as a consensus in favor of the nominator's request, i.e. the file is deleted or removed from the questioned article. Do these relistings follow FFD protocol and practice? Should I take this to ANI instead? – Train2104 ( t • c) 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Steel1943 and Train2104: Thanks for editing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. Is reformatting the heading needed? Readability is essential, yet the "What not to list here" section looks not easy to read, even when the list format is used. I can't think anything else wrong about the heading subpage right now, but I might have overlooked something else wrong. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Posting this here instead of nominating because I'm pretty ignorant of Crown Copyright, maybe the uploader User:Timeshift9 or others can elucidate. On the face of it, the statement that the source allows non-commercial use and the claim that it is in the public domain seem self-evidently contradictory. Maybe that's a problem with the file description and not necessarily a problem with the file. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are 6 day old nominations not transcluded, and instead just linked under "Discussions approaching conclusion"? They are still open. CFD, AFD, etc don't remove them from the list until the end of the 7th day. – Train2104 ( t • c) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked about this before as Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Multiple nominations of the same file but never got a response, so I'll ask again. Is there a way to distinguish between multiple nominations of the same file like there is in the case of articles nominated more than once at AfD. If there isn't, then maybe there should be an FFD version of {{ afdx}} or something similar to help distinguish these nominations. I am asking because there are occasionally discussions which are closed, but which do not in deletion of the file in question, e.g., remove a non-free file from one article, but keep in another. So, since consensus can change the file in question may be subsequently re-nominated at a later date for further discussion. In such cases, it would be helpful to be able to find the previous FFD discussion(s) for reference just in case it's not mentioned in the subsequent FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking for the template created for files uploaded prior to the requirement that editors explicitly cite themselves as the authors (i.e., when "self" templates with no added detail were sufficient, like c. 2006). Anyone know what I'm talking about? czar 13:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Something looks hokey about the Commons:File:Diversey_logo_-_updated.jpg. Where do I go to discuss this?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am unable to purge the page because there isn’t a purge link anywhere. I am a mobile editor. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 05:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
A day prior to File:Prachi Tehlan Black and White 2017.jpg's upload to WP, a lower-resolution version of it appeared on this copyrighted site. So, is it a copyvio? - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Template:DualLicenseWithCC-ByND-3.0. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I made an attempt to fix the search box for the 'Files for Discussion' page, but that didn't work. Any ideas? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page ( chat page , contribs) 20:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In response to some comments here in some discussions here - Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 9.
The concern is that the current wording of the header (and rationale for FFD), doesn't necessarily cover the situation that arose, namely media that isn't disputed as being PD (within a given jurisdiction), but about which a status concern exists given that the media should be under a different (potentially more restrictive) license concerning it's PD status outside that jurisdiction, given an ambiguity as to the original or first publication. In this instance the desired outcome is not an outright deletion as the header would suggest but a clarification of the actual status, in this instance so that it can be more clearly determined if the file can be moved to Commons.
There's also an implied deletion threat in the wording of the header, which if this was genuinely intended to be Files for Discussion over the former Files for Deletion, should be re-considered. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, the FfD detection logic for Article Alerts has been tweaked. In particular, rather than only look at what WikiProject banners the files are tagged with, it will also look on which articles the files are used. E.g. File:Charmed-dia-w.png isn't tagged with any banners, but it is used on Quark, which is tagged by {{ WP Physics}}, so it will be included in the alerts of WikiProject Physics if it's nominated for deletion. This will be particularly handy for fair-use heavy projects like WP:VG/ WP:ALBUMS and the like.
Report anything weird to WP:AALERTS/BUGS. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The above is in an error tracking category that I monitor and I'm hoping someone will know how to handle it. The problem is that {{ Non-free reduced}} (which redirects to {{ Orphaned non-free revisions}}) has been used without a date. I might fudge something to fix that, but I don't understand why such a template would be used when I can only see one file revision. Is there a more appropriate noticeboard? Ping Artanisen. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been often closing/relisting FFD discussions over the past months, but due to a combination of Christmas and my wiki-work on African humid period I won't be closing FFDs in the next few weeks. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Since no-one at meta has decided to advertise this attempt to supercede local policy on enwiki at all, any editors interested in files should have a look at meta:NonFreeWiki. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
LaundryPizza03, I am not sure if that was a good idea. English Wikipedia cares principally about the US copyright and there are images which are copyrighted in the US but not in the country of origin; we can't keep these except as non-free. I think that addition might confuse people into thinking otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Pppery: regarding Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading - I suppose it could be bot-updated again in the future, but in any event it made the main RFD page not be so cluttered in the wikitext with the mostly static header. Also, can't see why the /heading would need to be a redirect now? I think this should be maintained as a /heading page as is common on many other process pages. — xaosflux Talk 16:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
...Since their subpages do not include ".../Log/...". I'll have to see where this leads as I may try to change that. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. * Pppery * the end 21:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What are the rules regarding a photograph of a photograph? This image is getting used on the Vinod Dham Biography, and I suspect it shouldn't be. Apart from the copyright issue, it's effectively got an on-image credit. Just not sure if I should just crop it or nominate for deletion. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The FFD discussion for File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg was forked due to an improper relist by Atomicdragon136.
Jo-Jo Eumerus or MBisanz, would you sort this out? — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I asked about this before at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Multiple nominations of the same file back in 2017, but never got a response. I think it would be a big help for there to be either a separate template for multiple FFD nominations of the same file or a way to tweak {{ Afdx}} so that it can be used for FFD to make it easier (like the case at AFD) to know whether a file has been previously discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links. (A proposal to add edit links to the "Old discussions" section) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Template:Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 11:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe all the files in this article have been uploaded to commons inappropriately, but I never can figure out what the hell to do with images. If someone could take a look at these, or nominate them for deletion/review, that would be great. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
There are currently three TimedText files that have been nominated for deletion (by User:Snaevar) at Miscellany for Deletion. A question has been raised as to why these discussions are at MFD and not at Files for Discussion, since TimedText are a special type of files. The answer is that the discussions are at MFD because the instructions at the MFD page list various namespaces that are discussed at MFD including TimedText. As in: "We do it that way." The expertise to consider whether to keep or delete such files is probably here at FFD rather than at MFD. I have started a discussion at Village pump (proposals) to move the deletion forum for TimedText. I invite regular editors here to join the discussion at VPR. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
For files that are in use, the instructions on Wikipedia:Files for discussion says that the uploader needs to be informed and the page could be notified with a caption, but the template Template:Ffd says that the caption should be added and the uploader could be notified. Which of these are correct, or should both the uploader be notified and a caption added to the article?
I have noticed this on screenshots of television episodes, where the files were uploaded years ago by a user who likely is no longer is active on Wikipedia and it is far more likely that users would have the television episode articles on their watchlist as compared to the screenshots themselves. By also adding the caption to the articles, it is far more likely to get users to add to the discussion, as can be seen after I added the captions to the Black Mirror articles. I asked one user for added a lot of screenshots here why they did not add the caption since it is a lot harder to add the caption afterwards especially if the template is set to "help=off" instead of when they added the template. Their response was if the file was not deleted, they did not want to have to go back to the article to removed the caption, see User talk:Koavf/Archive054#File for discussion captions in articles.
I think the added benefits of getting more discussion by notifying the uploader and adding a caption far outweighs making things slightly easier for discussion nominators and both sets of instructions should remove "consider" to make the practice mandatory. Aspects ( talk) 04:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
FFDC}}
isn't a straightforward task, and could be highly error-prone for a bot. On the other hand, removing {{
FFDC}}
where the outcome was keep is very simple. I'm willing to write the latter bot if there's interest. -
FASTILY 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Wonder if someone could help? On a page about Horwich RMI FC - an old football club now also listed on here as Leigh Genesis - there is a badge within the first paragraph. It states that the badge is owned by Leigh Genesis. This is incorrect. The badge is a new badge that was designed by Horwich RMI JFC - a new junior football club. The badge shown clearly shows Horwich RMI JFC. The JFC badge was designed in 2010 and has been used by the junior club since. The badge shown is NOT the original one used by the original club and is not owned by Leigh Genesis. Could it be removed please? Grundyhotpot ( talk) 13:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a big complicated deletion review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 16#Multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters which is 30 days old now and nobody has taken on closing it. It's been posted at WP:ANRFC for 15 days, but still no takers. We need an uninvolved admin who is familiar with FfD practices to take a look at the discussion and close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
1977 old case. not able to get any information form Ga. records. can I bye pass the State of Ga. and pull up FED. records? if so how to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luther madry ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I would like to nominate all files in Category:Former or old logos, Category:Alternate logos and Category:Anniversary logos to FFD. The rationale being (copied and sightly edited from similar nominations by JJMC89): Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. The issue is however that an equivalent to Commons’s VisualFileChange, which allows for mass nominations, doesn't exist here so if someone could nominate all these files for me and leave a notice on all the uploader's user pages it would be very appreciated. Jonteemil ( talk) 23:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
individually reviewed. Does that mean you just checked to see whether the files were in the same category or does that mean you checked to see how each file was being used? Perhaps you can clarify the following examples of files you nominated.You nominated File:Tampabaydevilrays10thanniversarypatch.gif, File:5th Anniversary.jpg, File:Canadiens100Anniversary.png and File:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.gif for being former logos not complying with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Do you remember checking them because they actually seem to be being used for primary identification purposes in their respective articles despite what you stated in your nomination statement? Do you remember checking File:San Diego Padres (2020) cap logo.svg? Did you see that essentially the same logo has been uploaded to Commons as File:SD Logo Brown.svg under a {{ PD-logo}} license? If the Commons file is correctly licensed than mostly all the is needed for the non-free is for it to be converted to the same license. Did you notice that File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg is being used in three different articles in not exactly the same way? You made no mention of the different uses in your nomination statement. Does that mean you felt (feel?) all three uses are equivalent and thus all are not NFCC compliant? Sometimes a non-free file is used multiple times. Some uses might be OK (i.e. "keep"), while others might not be OK (i.e. "remove"). A file doesn't necessarily need to be deleted if only some of its non-free uses aren't NFCC compliant.Finally, even though File:Birmingham Black Barons cap logo.png and File:HollywoodStarsCap.png were uploaded as non-free, they’re really nothing but letters on a colored background. Did you consider that the uploader might have simply made a mistake and chosen the wrong license?Whether you nominated all these files in one single edit or split them up into multiple edits, it’s still a huge number of files and many of them might have been able to resolve in other ways. Moreover, you nominated all the files for the same reason even that reason doesn't seem to apply to each and every one of them. That's what's making this seem like a "mass nomination" even though it technically wasn't done in a single edit. — Marchjuly ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Trying to argue that it was OK you to do this type of thing because JJMC89 did it will not get you very far at ANI.If you interpret it as such, you have all the right in the world to do that, but it isn't that easy.
Same goes for saying it's the administrator who deleted the files who's really at fault since they should've known better.I have a problem with this statement too. Why should I take responsibility if something is incorrectly deleted? Simply don't delete it? If it shouldn't have been deleted, then why was it?
so, trying to say others are also at fault because they didn't help is also not going to get you far at ANI., this is simply just wrong. No one is at fault for not helping me, obviously. The WP:MEATBOT criticism I actually agree with. What I did clearly is in violation of WP:MEATBOT, of which I wasn't aware beforehand. Jonteemil ( talk) 22:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a claim by Kim Erik Olsen that some of the images I used on Dorothy Olsen are not in fact PD, as I understood them to be. Could somebody who is better versed in PD image issues than I am please take a look? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject of FFD notifications seems to be brought up quite a number of times before (according to this page's archives), but it still seems to be a issue that occasionally appears (most recently at WT:NFCC#Image nominated for deletion simply because an editor doesn't like it) that might be causing some misunderstanding or even worse actual problems between editors. The current FFD instructions seem to only require that file uploaders be given due notice; it does mention that WikiProjects and other editors may be also noticed, but seems to say doing so is just an option. Same goes for whether to use {{ ffdc}}.
For obvious reasons, notifying the uploader makes sense and is consistent with other XFD pages. Files, however, tend to be different from other pages is that the actual FFD template is added to the file's page and most editors who actually use file probably never even bother to look at the file's page yet alone add it to their watchlists. In some cases, a file might be uploaded by someone who is no longer active or might not be connected to how many ways the file is being used. This seems to be the case with respect to non-free content much of the time; someone uploads a file years ago for use in one particular article, and other editors subsequently start adding the file to other articles. So, there are lots of cases, where a file nominated for discussion at FFD might not receive lots of comments simply because those who might be interested in the file's use aren't aware it's being discussed until after the file is deleted and removed from the article(s) where it's being used. There's Community Tech bot which adds notifications about Commons files to article talk page; so, maybe a bot could do the same for FFD. Anyway, the basic question is whether it should be required that FFD notifications be added to the articles where files nominated for discussion are being used. This could be resolved either via an RFC or through regular talk page discussion, but I think the question "Should FFD notifications on article talk pages be mandatory?" needs to be answered for once and for all.
There are some other issues that I'd also like input on like a WP:DELSORT type of set up for FFD, how to deal with files which have been nominated multiple times at FFD (e.g. an FFD version of {{ AFDx}}), possibly adding {{ oldffd}} to article talk pages as well as file talk pages, whether article talk page discussion or file talk page discussion should be required prior to FFD (as some noticeboards seem to require), etc., but resolving the notification question first is probably more important. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I've seen nominators making very similar rationales in individual listings without realizing the alternatives to mass-nominate related files into one section. And I have to merge those listings if they can let me. Are instructions on mass nominations not visible to most editors? If that's the case, then how do we improve the readability/visibility of such instructions? Speaking of instructions, I recently found out this generator to easily create sourcing of mass-nomination, mentioned by the instructions. If that's not the case, then what else can be done about individual listings using same rationales? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
On January 1, 2021, all works published in 1925 will enter public domain in the US. Presumably there will be files from 1925 that were previously deleted, but can be undeleted on January 1. Is there a coordinated/formal process for doing these undeletions (similar to c:COM:Public Domain Day)? Or does the normal process for undeletions apply (ask closing admin first, then go to deletion review if unresolved)? Wikiacc ( ¶) 22:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I have made a request for a bot at WP:BOTREQ to move old WP:Files for deletion pages to WP:Files for discussion similar to the move of WP:Votes for deletion to WP:Articles for deletion. Any thoughts? P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings everyone!
If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.
You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.
Thank you!
( MRaish (WMF) ( talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the privacy statement for this survey.
I started a discussion about this a few years back Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Delsort tags and appreciate the comments I received from Steel1943 and Czar at the time. A recent edit made to a FFD discussion by GiantSnowman, however, makes me think that now might be a good time to revisit this subject again and reconsider whether WP:DELSORT templates can or should be used in FFD discussions. GiantSnowman is the first person I ever noticed adding a delsort template to an FFD thread, but I've always wondered why it's not something done more often.
FFD doesn't seem to attract as many participants as some of the other XFD pages do and part of this could simply just be an over all lack of interest in file related matters. Lots of editors probably just treat files as an afterthought or minor aspect of Wikipedia, and just assume file usage to be pretty much automatic in all cases. Anyone who works with files knows there's more to it that this, but most people don't and the only time they might show up at a FFD discussion is when a file they uploaded or added to an article ends up being discussed. So many FFDs end up with minimal participation (sometimes just an nomination statement), and in some cases the results of these discussion end up being contested sometime down the road by someone who claims they weren't aware or the discussion or there's was insufficient participation or whatever. Some admins might treat a file deleted/removed in such a way as a sort of a WP:SOFTDELETE because of the low participation, but the FFD page actually states that files may deleted or removed after the FFD has run seven days in cases where "no objections to deletion or removal have been raised". In other XFD processes, this type of lack of participation seems to often end up being a "no-consensus keep", but the FFD instructions (particularly for non-free content) seem to imply that "no-consensus" means "delete/remove".
Another possible reason for the lack of participation at FFD might have to do with the notification processed involved. Lots of files don't have talk pages and in many cases the uploader (who might no longer be around) ends up being the only person notified when a file ends up at FFD. I personally try to use things like {{ ffdc}} when I can in an article, and also try to add at least one WikiProject banner to the talk pages for files I nominate for discussion because I'm hoping this might make it easier for others (besides the uploader) to know about the discussion. I've occasionally added a {{ Please see}} template to a WikiProject talk page or an article talk page, but I don't always do so.
Anyway, I'm wondering whether there's a way to enhance the notification process which at least will make it a bit easier for others to know that a file is being discussed. Delsort tags might be a good way to do this (if it's technically feesible), but there might other ways as well. I'm not necessarily suggesting notifications for individual editors who might be interested in a particular discussion, but more general notifications for article talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc. There's always going to be someone who complains that they weren't notified or that three people !voting isn't a consensus, but there's never going to be a fix for that. File use (particularly non-free content use) seems to be one of those things where 100% agreement is never going to be achieved, but a bit more can and should be done (at least in my opinion) to try and get more members of the community involved in these discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There's been another mass nomination of files made by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4#Files in Category:Cap logos. While it might be technically possible to nominate so many files at once and there doesn't appear to be any formal restriction placed on the number of files that can be nominated at once, it might be a good idea to discuss whether a proper discussion can be when so many files have been nominated at the same time. FFDs are expected to run at least seven days, and after seven day they can be closed per the nomination if nobody bothers to comment.
When you have a nomination of so many files at once but the reasons for nominating each file are clearly laid out by the nominator, then it might be possible to discuss the merits of each individual file. However, when you have a bunch of files nominated and the only reason given is to another page where there was some discussion aout possibly nominating the files, then there's a much lesser chance of it leading to a productive FFD discussion and a much greater chance of leading to what happened before at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Mass FFD nom and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil. Perhaps some of the files should be deleted for WP:NFCCP reasons, but perhaps there are also other ways of doing so that don't involve nominating 50+ files at once.
FWIW, I randomly clicked on ten of the files which were nominated and none of them weren't tagged with {{ FFD}} to indicate that they were being discussed at FFD. The uploaders of each of the files were also not notified that the files were nominated for discussion and there was no indication given on the articles where the files were being used (e.g. {{ ffdc}} or a {{ Please see}} on the talk page) that they had been nominated for discussion. Perhaps these are things which will be done later by the nominator or by some bot, but they're important things should be done because they help make the FFD process more transparent and known to those who might want to comment on the files. It also helps avoid editors complaining later on about files being deleted without any warning or notification. There also was no notification placed on the talk page of the WikiProject whose scope these files fall under which probably have been a good idea just as a courtesy even if it's not required simply because of the number of files involved and because it relates to image use in a infobox template being used by so many articles which fall under the project's scope. Some of the files nominated don't have file talk pages which means the alert page might not pick them up even if they are properly tagged for discussion.
While I think the nominator is acting in good-faith based upon whatever guidance is being given on the FFD page and the category talk page where this was sort of discussed, I also think it might be time to decide whether these types of mass nominations should be allowed, in principle, or at least try and provide more guidance regarding how to best do them. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Item 3 in the "Instructions for listing files for discussion" section on the main FFD page is about "giving notice". The instructions state Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}"
. To me, this sentence means that compliance isn't an option; in other words, if you nominate a file for discussion, you are responsible and required to notify at least the uploader of the discussion. The other part of Item 3 about adding {{
ffdc}} templates to captions and notifying WikiProjects does seem to be optional; doing so would be courteous perhaps, but it's not necessarily required. I think that most XFD nominations work the same way in that making the discussion as known to as many interested parties as possible is probably a good thing in general, but a specific individual notification is required to be given to the editor who created the page. Whether they end up responding or not is up to them, but notification is still required.
Anyway, I'm not sure whether it's something that just started happening recently or something that has been happening for awhile now, but there seems to be a bo which goes around informing file uploaders that one of their uploads is being discussed at FFD. I'm not sure if the bot only does this when the FFD nominator fails to do or forgets to do so and a certain amount of time has passed, or whether the bot will automatically do so each time a file ends up at FFD unless a human editor does it first. If the former is the case, I think that perhaps some clarification needs to be made that nomination is still mandatory and that intentionally not doing so because you think a bot will do it for you at some point is not really good practice. If the latter is the case and the bot will be triggered into action when {{ FFD}} template is added to the file's page, then maybe the process should be streamlined a bit and the FFD page tweaked to reflect this.
I don't use scripts when I edit, but lots of editors do. I don't know how things like WP:TWINKLE work per se, but lots of editors do seem to use it to try and make things a bit more efficient. Many these scripts have become so common these days that things like manual notifications are now more of the exception than the rule. If that's the case and a script or bot can do things more efficiently, then maybe once again it might be a good idea to take a look at the FFD process and see if it can be streamlined a bit. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why this is being reverted [3]. WP:NFCR clearly states that WP:FFD is the place to discuss this. Since {{ don't know}} and {{ license change}} are clearly two templates related to non-free content review, it is obviously of concern to the centralized discussion that NFCR was merged to, which is FFD.
-- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I just ran a quarry looking for files of formats that can't be uploaded anymore. What I found was 44 files, 43 of which are bmp files. I'm not really sure how these should be handled but, I think this situation feels suboptimal. Thoughts? -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI {{ File with non-existent categories}} and {{ File with non-existent templates}} have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to hold back on low participation, but I can't. Even after File PROD became effective in 2017, and even with decreased amount of nominations since the File PROD, FFD participation has been still usually low. In my experiences, ones who replied to my listings have been usually uploaders and regulars and sometimes those wanting to defend certain files. Participation as ever has been still low. Is this how FFD will have been? If so, then... I guess I feel powerless? I have become unsure whether inviting others, including those unenthusiastic, for input would help much. -- George Ho ( talk) 12:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI, two file cleanup categories are nominated for deletion, Category:Reuploaded deleted images and Category:Verified reuploaded deleted images and Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale for more than 7 days -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
FYI {{ File page NFCC concerns tag}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 18:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [ talk 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Template:MPL 2.0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, file license tag Template:Don't know ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for renaming. See template talk:Don't know -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
When a file has multiple revisions by different uploaders, should the most recent uploader, the first uploader, or all uploaders be notified? 93 ( talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an image with a confusing title: File:Light Blade weapon system.jpg, which in fact shows not Iron Beam, but Light Blade. How can I rename it? Loew Galitz ( talk) 04:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Substitute int: messages. We're thinking about running a bot that will affect a couple thousand files. I don't think file namespace stuff has a noticeboard, so posting this in a couple conspicuous spots where I know file gurus hang out. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Image-warn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion, as this is a file handling template, and this is the noticeboard for informing file-involved users of such issues (now that other NBs have been closed down), I've left this message. -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 06:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
All three files discussed on June 3 were deleted without formally closing the nominations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure people are aware that Flickr now lets you see the license history of a photo as of today. This means we may be able to restore certain files that were deleted because we couldn't be sure they were freely licensed at some point in time. :-) Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The YouTube account for Warner Music New Zealand is (accidentally?) uploading copyrighted songs and their snippets under a "Creative Commons" license. Commons is currently hosting an entire Nicki Minaj performance of copyrighted songs, and parts of several music videos from Dua Lipa, Charlie Puth, and Cardi B (many other artists as also seen here). This sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion as the same channel is starting to host straight-up studio verisons of copyrighted songs under a CC license as well. My deletion request was closed on Commons but I wanted to bring it to this forum's attention if someone more familiar with that site wants to take this forward.-- N Ø 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There are quite a number of files hosted here on the basis that they are in the public domain since they were published anonymously in a 1938 UK publication, "Film Star Who's Who on the screen" This is problematic for two reasons, as firstly Commons discussions have concluded that these images are usually taken from films, voiding the anonymous publication claim; more importantly, they would all be copyrighted in the US anyway since the URAA restored their copyright until 2034. It must have come up somewhere, but I cannot find any hints on whether it is possible (or advisable) to nominate more than one file for deletion at the same time, as it is on Commons. Or would that make it too difficult to assess potential non-free uses? Felix QW ( talk) 19:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
|header=
for the "Ffd2" template, you'll be able to change the name of the thread header from a file name to something else (e.g. "Film Star Who's Who on the screen files"). When you complete the "Ffd2" template, just add the name of the first file you want to discuss, and add the name of that file's uploader in the |uploader=
parameter, but give the reasons why all of the files need to be discussed in the |reason=
paramater. When you've done that, click "Show preview". If everything is OK, add the remaining files using the "Ffd2a" template. Click "Show preview" again and if everything looks OK, you can cut out the "Ffd2" templates, click "Publish changes", edit the thread, paste the "Ffd2" templates back into the thread right below the syntax for the first file (but above the reason), click "Show preview" and then finally click "Publish changes". I don't think there's a limit on the number of files that can be discussed at once, but the more there are the harder they might be to discuss; in addition, you can only use {{
Ffd notice multi}} for 26 files at a time. Multi-file nominations tend to be easier to deal with if you break them up into smaller groups (e.g. by uploader, by reason, by time period, by format), particulary when you're talking about 10 or more files. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
My question is where {{ Oldffdfull}}, and the now-defunct {{ Non-free reviewed}} and {{ Non-free reviewed no consensus}} should be posted now that NFCR is no more and FfD handles both. The Ffd one seems to always be posted on the file's talk page while the NFCR ones seems to have always been posted on the file's description page (sometimes at the top or the page and sometimes below the copyright notice). If there's only a single template, then it's probably makes no difference where it's posted. It might be a little confusing, however, for files tagged with multiple templates for multiple discussions.
For example, File:Czech Republic FA.png was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#File:Czech Republic FA.png in November 2013 and a "Non-free reviewed" template was added to the file's description page here. The same file was also discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Czech Republic FA.png in November 2015 and the "Oldffdfull" template was added to the file's talk page here. The NFCR template is the one that people are going to notice first since that is on the file's page, and not many people will have any reason to check the file's talk page for another template. So, they will assume that the file can be used in Czech Republic national football team, Czech Republic national under-21 football team, Czech Republic women's national football team as well as Football Association of the Czech Republic even though that is contrary to the result of the subsequent FfD discussion.
There's sort of a similar thing currently happening with File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The file was first discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, only no "non-free reviewed" template was added after the close. The file was discussed again at NFCR in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg (for slightly different reasons), and the close was "no consensus" and the file was tagged with "Non-free reviewed no consensus". The file is now currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg which means an "Oldffdfull" template will be added to the file's talk page after the close. If the "non-free reviewed" for the first NFCR had been added, you'd have three separate templates for three separate discussions with possibly three separate closes for the same file. Something similar could possibly happen for some of the NFCR discussions in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71 tagged with "NFCR no consensus" if someday they are discussed at FfD.
Perhaps its time that the placement, etc. of file related templates be standardized to ensure that they are all posted on the file's talk page. Maybe a Template:Old FfD multi template needs to be created so that all prior NFCR/FfD discussions can be combined for easy reference. I'm not sure what was done prior to the merge when a file was nominated for deletion at FfD multiple times; maybe such a thing never happened since both "keep" and "delete" are quite definitive results. However, since FfD now discusses NFCC issues it seems possible that the same non-free file could possibly be discussed multiple times. Maybe the first time ends in no consensus, so the file is nominated again. Maybe the first time disallowed a particular usage, but the situation has changed and so the consensus has changed as well. Maybe something new is added to the NFCC, as seems to have been the case with "File:Czech Republic FA.png", so that a usage previously allowed is no longer considered acceptable. There seem to be may other possibilities which might lead to the same file being discussed again. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion relevant to Files for Discussion is currently ongoing at the village pump. The topic is Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, a user has continued to remove the file File:BBC First.png from the article BBC First (Australia), giving reasons on my talk page including "specific non-free use rationale is needed for each usage" but suggesting if I were to write one for usage on this particular article, it would almost certainly fail anyway. While the file has the licence of {{ Non-free logo}} its Commons entry uses both {{ PD-textlogo}} and {{ Trademarked}}. I'm unsure how best to proceed, as clearly it should be acceptable for the logo to be used in the article in the infobox. -- Whats new? (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that I recently made some additions to the closing instructions to help better encapsulate the new functionality of FFD including setting an expectation that a closing administration closing a discussion to anything other than delete or keep has an understanding of copyright laws to make sure that consensus does not obviously contradict the laws. I also added instructions about how to relist discussions. Feel free to add anything else which I may have not added. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The template syntax is described on multiple pages: {{ ffd|log=2024 June 23}}. However, it seems that the date is cached and that you sometimes see the wrong date. For example, if I go to {{ ffd}} and check the documentation on that page, then I see today's date when I'm logged in, but yesterday's date when I'm logged out. This is confusing and could result in wrong dates being added to the template, in particular when the template is added by an IP.
I have made an attempt to automatically return a dated template by substituting the template. If you use {{ subst:ffd/sandbox}}, then this automatically returns a dated sandbox template. Is there any opposition against including this feature in the main template? The documentation could then be changed to recommend substitution, and we then do not need to worry about cached copies of pages which do not show the current date. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
If you list a file on FFD using Twinkle, then Twinkle removes everything else from the discussion page. See the history of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 11: this has happened several times today. If someone lists a file using Twinkle, remember to fix the page after this. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Per this discussion, consensus has been formed to merge Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files into Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Here's my high-level idea for the immediate steps to merge WP:PUF into WP:FFD and the order which these steps should be taken:
...In all honesty, this merge will most likely not be as complicated as the WP:NFCR merge to FFD since no page was/will be renamed as a result of the merge consensus. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
PUF uses a lot of templates which need to be taken care of:
Are there other templates to take care of? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on a possible entry for FFD (once PUF is wholly closed) is here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Template:Wrong license might have slipped through the cracks during the clean up related to the PUF/FFD merge. If it's just a question of fixing the link/updating the text so that the target page in FFD, then I should be able to do that. However, I've never edited a "maintenance template" like this before so I'm not sure if there's more involved. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So I'd help with the backlog if I didn't have to manually paste the templates. Does anyone have a working FfD tool? Mine's dead czar 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
One of the commons themes I see in the backlog are discussions with a consensus to "convert to non-free", as in they need a FUR. I imagine that these are being held up because it would require the closer or someone to update the image's tags. Does this fall on the closer? Because it's holding up discussion processing. If instead we had a tag or instructions to close as "missing FUR" (read: some form of delayed speedy F6), we would get through these a lot faster. czar 20:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Following up to this COI page discussion, basically there's concerns about the usage of the Commons file File:Ihs-logo.svg. Is there a place to discuss the usage of Commons files? I created a listing at WP:FFD at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_July_10#File:Ihs-logo.svg but it seems like it's considered outside of its scope. Should FFD handle dispute about the usage of images that are hosted on Commons? Else, should it be handled as a content dispute on a page-by-page basis? Alternatively, we could host an RFC on the file image's talk page or something. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move going on at Template talk:Cfd-notify involving moving the template Template:fdw (and other such templates). Pppery ( talk) 23:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Are there delsort templates specifically designed for FFD? Would it be problematic to use those designed for AFD if there are not? Right now, there are templates for the file's page, the uploader's page, image captions, but there does not seem to be anything specifically for the top of the articles where the files being discussed are being used. It does say in the FFD instructions that "consider (...) adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion", but this seems optional and probably not followed through very much (I hardly go this far). Maybe if there was some template to add to the article which was part of the ffd2 template (prehaps as |article=
or something) or a delsort template which would add the discussion to a WikiProject's deletion sorting page, it might get more editors involved in the discussion and help eliminate concerns that decisions are being made by a few who do not necessarily represent the views of the community. It also might help reduce the number of "I didn't know" and "It's unfair" comments that often pop up when somebody tries to re-add a file previously removed as a result of FFD. The number of files being discussed has increased due to the recent merges of NFCR and PUF into FFD. On some days there may be only a few discussions going on, but on others there may be well over a 100. Not all of the files being discussed are being used in articles, but many are so it might help establish a consensus more quickly and reduce the backload if more people are involved. Of course, the consensus should still be based on relevant policy so maybe a guide like
WP:ATA could be created which is specific to files. How to treat files not tagged with a WikiProject banner and files whose WikiProjects do not have a delsort template would also have to be figured out, but that can be done through discussion. I've linked this discussion at
WT:DELSORT, but I am also interested in how regular participants, including any admins who close FFD discussions, feel about something like this. Thanks in advance. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
|article=
or |wikiproject=
to it) so that templates can be added to articles/article talk pages or the relevant WikiProjects page. I understand notifications can be added manually, but those are optional and adding them doesn't seem to be common practice. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I participated in the remaining May and June discussions so they just need someone to flush/close them out or relist. I handled the rest. czar 17:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if {{ Oldffdfull}} should be tweaked a bit to clarify that a "keep" vote for a non-free image does not necessarily mean any additional non-free image use is automatically NFCC compliant. Before WP:NFCR was merged into FFD, non-free use discussion took place there and {{ Non-free reviewed}} was added to closed discussions. Non-free use discusion do not necessarily mean that an image is either kept or deleted; it is often the case that multiple uses of an image are being discussed and the result is that use is acceptable for some, but not for others. Perhaps additional wording should be adding to the "Oldffdfull" template to reflect this. It might also be a good idea to add something to No. 9 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines explaining about this. My concern is that simply adding "keep" without specifying which article(s) non-free use has been deemed to be OK might mislead others it to assuming that non-free use has been deemed compliant for all future use. As it is, many seem to think that simply adding a non-free use rationale template to an file automatically equals "being NFCC compliant" when that is very only dealing with WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
So many images have been nominated for discussion. Yet so very little participation. What gives? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Attendance or lack of it is exploited to delete images as "no objection to deletion"seems to be assuming a bit of bad faith on the part of others. I think it's better to assume that the person nominating a file for discussion truly believes that its use does not comply with relevant policy or guidelines. Their interpretation may be wrong for sure, but that is for the community to figure out and for the closing admin to assess. Even freely licensed image use is not really automatic by default and there has to be a proper encyclopedic reason for using any image file. Things just happen to be trickier when it comes to non-free image use because there are 10 fairly specific criterion which need to be satisfied in addition to WP:IUP. As Majora points out, the lack of comments could simply because there has been a precedent established through previous FFD discussions where a particular type of use is not really considered acceptable or the result is obvious. Some files are nominated for discussion at FFD, when they could have been tagged with a speedy deletion template instead.
Can anyone here help me fix this template? I always copy and paste the wrong dates. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Any input you may have on improving the bot, or whether the bot should run at all, would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC -- Majora ( talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Do we have some mechanism for notifying enwp article watchers that related files are up for deletion? With FfD, we add in-line tags on an article so editors can come to the discussion, but do we do the same when a Commons image is up for deletion? If so, I haven't seen it, but I think it would be useful. It's not like the Commons discussion is any less relevant than the enwp FfD discussion. czar 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
How are we handling 2D scans of the text-only circle stickers in the middle of vinyl LP records? Are we saying they have no compositional originality? What about labels from the UK and its low threshold of originality? I know there have been a few cases for precedent, but I haven't kept track. Might be useful to have a template for these cases, both for us and for readers czar 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus to merge the WP:NFCR into "Files for deletion" led to formation of "Files for discussion" in October 2015. WP:PUF was also merged per consensus in April 2016. Now I would like your feedback on the current process, "Files for discussion". What are your thoughts about this? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Files for discussion nominations were mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Mass listings with identical rationales, disruptive by SmokeyJoe. The nominations by とある白い猫 began on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 6, and by my estimate about 200 files have now been express closed as delete mostly by Fastily.— Godsy ( TALK CONT) 10:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a tool for batch nominations to FfD? Like commons:Help:VisualFileChange.js for enwp? czar 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Throwing this here to get comments from file namespace folks. What are your thoughts on a bot that goes through Category:Non-free images for NFUR review and marks images as having a rationale if they have a completed rationale?
Example: Consider {{ Non-free use rationale logo}}. That template is "complete" when it has its "Article" and "Use" parameters completed, as those are the only mandatory parameters. I could create a temporary tracking category to track all completed non-free use rationales for logos and then run a bot through to ensure that all transclusions of {{ Non-free logo}} on those file description pages have the "image has rationale" parameter set to yes.
The goal would be to clear out a lot of the crap in the 180k+ NFUR review category to allow us to actually review non-free files without appropriate rationales. Thoughts on this? ~ Rob13 Talk 23:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled on File:17 High Park Road.png this today which is being used under fair use. To my mind this image is easily re-created by simply going to the location in question and taking a free photograph. There's nothing to indicate that this building is no longer there (i.e. that a new and free image would be difficult/impossible to get). I was wondering if someone could give me some advice on whether these kinds of FU images are legitimate. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Backlog_of_unpatrolled_files for two proposals related to file patrol. Cenarium ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Our procedure for relisting discussions says that the discussion on the old log page can either be collapsed or removed altogether (since the content is moved to the new log page, and is linked from the old log page). TfD appears to have a preference of removing the discussion. I'm testing @ Evad37's new XfD closer and wanted to see whether we should have a preference for collapsing or removing the discussion on the old log. czar 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Davey2010. Can you revert your edit back to "files for d"? There are subpages of formerly "Files for deletion", like Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 21. I appreciate it. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As said previously at #RFC on routine file deletion, the status WP:ROD is downgraded from "guideline" to "proposed". Also, the instructions were removed as the discussion is reopened. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 25 February 2017 (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.
Background: As of right now, unencyclopedic files are nominated for deletion through Files for discussion, and almost all are deleted after waiting a week. There's almost never participation at these discussions beyond the nominator and the deleting administrator. FFD is currently filled with such nominations, and these low-importance nominations make it substantially more difficult for our experts on copyright matters to find the nominations that require their attention.
Proposal: Files would be tagged with an alternative "routine file deletion" template, and, if the tag is not contested within 7 days (the current period of FFD before a nomination may be closed), the file is deleted. This proposal aims at separating these routine deletions from more advanced discussions that need additional comments. A list of files currently nominated for routine file deletion will be maintained by a bot at a subpage transcluded on WP:FFD to ensure such files receive the same visibility as other FFD nominations. This is intended purely as a change in administrative workflow to ensure editors can find the more controversial deletion nominations or queries about a file's copyright status.
Definition: An unencyclopedic file must meet one of the following two criteria:
Administrator instructions: When closing a routine file deletion, an administrator must verify the file meets the definition of an unencyclopedic file. If the file is unencyclopedic but otherwise fits the scope of Commons, it should be moved to Commons rather than deleted. Examples of such files may be files which are unlikely to benefit the English Wikipedia in any way but may benefit sister projects. If the nomination appears likely to be controversial, the administrator should procedurally nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Otherwise, the file may be deleted citing "routine file deletion" as the rationale. Files deleted routinely are eligible to be undeleted upon request.
Should the workflow of FFD be split between routine deletions and full deletion discussions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging
Train2104,
Fastily, and
MrX to notify them about the reopening via relisting that the discussion is reopened.
George Ho (
talk) 03:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 03:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? An adminbot to delete all old file revisions of images in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old if there's only one editor in the file history (to filter out cases where the file is later changed to non-free, which might require admin review). It seems pretty safe to automate deleting old revisions of rescaled images marked as non-free by the original uploader. ~ Rob13 Talk 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
for version in todelete:
is the one that says to go through each individual version. Try adding "print version" under it.
Dat Guy
Talk
Contribs 21:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
How about dropping the 'unencyclopedic' clause entirely, and reframing this as an extension to PROD as suggested in the RfC? As with article PROD and AfD, I would imagine that contentious file PROD cases would inevitably find their way to FfD. - FASTILY 01:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Iazyges. After reading Nyttend's comments, maybe we should do one of two options: 1) re-ask ourselves and others whether we should retain or remove the "unencyclopedic" definition, or 2) suspend workshopping the "unencyclopedic" criterion and then focus on expanding the PROD instead. We can't do both at the same time. Thoughts? George Ho ( talk) 02:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so dropping the "unencyclopedic" definition discussion and workshopping an extension of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (PROD), would the File PROD adopt all the criteria used in the current PROD (not previously PROD'd, no prior deletion discussions, no prior undeletions)? Should it exclude non-free files? Would the original uploader need to be notified? Etc. czar 03:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object to a the same criteria as article PROD, but require it to not be used in article space? I have no hard connection to unencyclopedic, and no issue with PRODing them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
New discussion WT:proposed deletion#File PROD has started. George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
As the backlog starts to slowly climb again, wanted to leave a little PSA that User:Evad37/XFDcloser, a new XFD script, works great with FfD both for closing and relisting. It's still in development, so leave a comment on its talk page if you have an issue. czar 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A recent Supreme Court ruling in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands will affect files on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The ruling essentially states that any design elements of a useful article (clothing, cars, etc.) can by copyrightable if (i) the design elements can be separated from the useful article itself into a 2D or 3D work of art, and (ii) that work of art would be copyrightable. Note that the first prong of that test is quite broad, as interpreted by the Court, basically stating that if you can take a picture of something, that's "separating" it from the useful article. Dissenting opinions in the 6–2 decision stated the obvious that just taking a picture of clothing doesn't make it not clothing, as the shape of the useful article is still present, but sadly the majority did not agree. The short of it is that many more images will now be free after applying de minimis when that principle wasn't necessary before, and images that focus primarily on useful articles may become non-free and fall under the non-free content criteria.
Full text of ruling: [1] SCOTUSblog summary: [2]
Along these lines, I have a bot task proposed that will slightly alter the text in ~400 non-free use rationales to note that the uniforms in question are under both trademark and copyright protection, not just trademark. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 35. ~ Rob13 Talk 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
For those admins who know what they're doing in the file namespace, help in that category would be ... well, helpful. There have been hundreds of files in there for over a week now, with it peaking sometimes above 1,500 files at a time. I've been trying to keep up, but there are many files being resized by a bot (catching up after a period of no active resizing bot, I believe), and I'm one person. There are a good 3,500 files that will be dumped in the category over the next 7 days, so it's not slowing down anytime soon. ~ Rob13 Talk 09:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Creating_a_new_PD-US-1923_template. ~ Rob13 Talk 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a couple Wikimania presentations that are relevant to the file process on enwiki. They are currently proposals. If you may attend Wikimania and would be interested in attending these presentations, feel free to indicate as such on the proposal pages. If anyone wants more information about these, leave me a talk page message.
I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the Copyright for Dummies slides; if you see something that could make them more effective or something missing, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob13 Talk 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#File PROD agreed to apply PROD-ding to files. The change may likely reduce backlogging of FFD noms in the future. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: The File PROD has been implemented into Wikipedia:Proposed deletion ( diffs). Feel free to PROD on files, but Twinkle is not yet updated. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
File:SelectTV logo.png and File:Petula Clark - Downtown 88.jpg are the first files to be PROD-tagged, one orphaned and one still used. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Notifying Majora, Fastily, XXN, Jon Kolbert, and Kelly about the updates. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Files for discussion. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to distinguish between multiple FFD nominations of the same file? For example, something like {{ afdx}}. I occassionally come accross FFD discussions where the file in question had been nominated before and think this might be helpful to know. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose to change the {{ Ffd}} template to the version currently at Template:Ffd/sandbox, created by @ KATMAKROFAN: to match the other deletion discussion templates. Any objections? – Train2104 ( t • c) 13:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice that Jax 0677 ( talk · contribs) has been doing a lot of relisting at FFD lately. I thought that in cases where the nominator implicitly or explicitly seeks deletion (or reduction in FUR scope), a lack of participation with no objections raised is treated the same as a consensus in favor of the nominator's request, i.e. the file is deleted or removed from the questioned article. Do these relistings follow FFD protocol and practice? Should I take this to ANI instead? – Train2104 ( t • c) 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Steel1943 and Train2104: Thanks for editing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. Is reformatting the heading needed? Readability is essential, yet the "What not to list here" section looks not easy to read, even when the list format is used. I can't think anything else wrong about the heading subpage right now, but I might have overlooked something else wrong. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Posting this here instead of nominating because I'm pretty ignorant of Crown Copyright, maybe the uploader User:Timeshift9 or others can elucidate. On the face of it, the statement that the source allows non-commercial use and the claim that it is in the public domain seem self-evidently contradictory. Maybe that's a problem with the file description and not necessarily a problem with the file. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are 6 day old nominations not transcluded, and instead just linked under "Discussions approaching conclusion"? They are still open. CFD, AFD, etc don't remove them from the list until the end of the 7th day. – Train2104 ( t • c) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked about this before as Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Multiple nominations of the same file but never got a response, so I'll ask again. Is there a way to distinguish between multiple nominations of the same file like there is in the case of articles nominated more than once at AfD. If there isn't, then maybe there should be an FFD version of {{ afdx}} or something similar to help distinguish these nominations. I am asking because there are occasionally discussions which are closed, but which do not in deletion of the file in question, e.g., remove a non-free file from one article, but keep in another. So, since consensus can change the file in question may be subsequently re-nominated at a later date for further discussion. In such cases, it would be helpful to be able to find the previous FFD discussion(s) for reference just in case it's not mentioned in the subsequent FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking for the template created for files uploaded prior to the requirement that editors explicitly cite themselves as the authors (i.e., when "self" templates with no added detail were sufficient, like c. 2006). Anyone know what I'm talking about? czar 13:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Something looks hokey about the Commons:File:Diversey_logo_-_updated.jpg. Where do I go to discuss this?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am unable to purge the page because there isn’t a purge link anywhere. I am a mobile editor. 165.91.13.209 ( talk) 05:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
A day prior to File:Prachi Tehlan Black and White 2017.jpg's upload to WP, a lower-resolution version of it appeared on this copyrighted site. So, is it a copyvio? - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Template:DualLicenseWithCC-ByND-3.0. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I made an attempt to fix the search box for the 'Files for Discussion' page, but that didn't work. Any ideas? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page ( chat page , contribs) 20:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In response to some comments here in some discussions here - Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 9.
The concern is that the current wording of the header (and rationale for FFD), doesn't necessarily cover the situation that arose, namely media that isn't disputed as being PD (within a given jurisdiction), but about which a status concern exists given that the media should be under a different (potentially more restrictive) license concerning it's PD status outside that jurisdiction, given an ambiguity as to the original or first publication. In this instance the desired outcome is not an outright deletion as the header would suggest but a clarification of the actual status, in this instance so that it can be more clearly determined if the file can be moved to Commons.
There's also an implied deletion threat in the wording of the header, which if this was genuinely intended to be Files for Discussion over the former Files for Deletion, should be re-considered. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, the FfD detection logic for Article Alerts has been tweaked. In particular, rather than only look at what WikiProject banners the files are tagged with, it will also look on which articles the files are used. E.g. File:Charmed-dia-w.png isn't tagged with any banners, but it is used on Quark, which is tagged by {{ WP Physics}}, so it will be included in the alerts of WikiProject Physics if it's nominated for deletion. This will be particularly handy for fair-use heavy projects like WP:VG/ WP:ALBUMS and the like.
Report anything weird to WP:AALERTS/BUGS. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The above is in an error tracking category that I monitor and I'm hoping someone will know how to handle it. The problem is that {{ Non-free reduced}} (which redirects to {{ Orphaned non-free revisions}}) has been used without a date. I might fudge something to fix that, but I don't understand why such a template would be used when I can only see one file revision. Is there a more appropriate noticeboard? Ping Artanisen. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been often closing/relisting FFD discussions over the past months, but due to a combination of Christmas and my wiki-work on African humid period I won't be closing FFDs in the next few weeks. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Since no-one at meta has decided to advertise this attempt to supercede local policy on enwiki at all, any editors interested in files should have a look at meta:NonFreeWiki. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
LaundryPizza03, I am not sure if that was a good idea. English Wikipedia cares principally about the US copyright and there are images which are copyrighted in the US but not in the country of origin; we can't keep these except as non-free. I think that addition might confuse people into thinking otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Pppery: regarding Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading - I suppose it could be bot-updated again in the future, but in any event it made the main RFD page not be so cluttered in the wikitext with the mostly static header. Also, can't see why the /heading would need to be a redirect now? I think this should be maintained as a /heading page as is common on many other process pages. — xaosflux Talk 16:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
...Since their subpages do not include ".../Log/...". I'll have to see where this leads as I may try to change that. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. * Pppery * the end 21:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What are the rules regarding a photograph of a photograph? This image is getting used on the Vinod Dham Biography, and I suspect it shouldn't be. Apart from the copyright issue, it's effectively got an on-image credit. Just not sure if I should just crop it or nominate for deletion. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The FFD discussion for File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg was forked due to an improper relist by Atomicdragon136.
Jo-Jo Eumerus or MBisanz, would you sort this out? — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I asked about this before at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Multiple nominations of the same file back in 2017, but never got a response. I think it would be a big help for there to be either a separate template for multiple FFD nominations of the same file or a way to tweak {{ Afdx}} so that it can be used for FFD to make it easier (like the case at AFD) to know whether a file has been previously discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links. (A proposal to add edit links to the "Old discussions" section) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Template:Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 11:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe all the files in this article have been uploaded to commons inappropriately, but I never can figure out what the hell to do with images. If someone could take a look at these, or nominate them for deletion/review, that would be great. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
There are currently three TimedText files that have been nominated for deletion (by User:Snaevar) at Miscellany for Deletion. A question has been raised as to why these discussions are at MFD and not at Files for Discussion, since TimedText are a special type of files. The answer is that the discussions are at MFD because the instructions at the MFD page list various namespaces that are discussed at MFD including TimedText. As in: "We do it that way." The expertise to consider whether to keep or delete such files is probably here at FFD rather than at MFD. I have started a discussion at Village pump (proposals) to move the deletion forum for TimedText. I invite regular editors here to join the discussion at VPR. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
For files that are in use, the instructions on Wikipedia:Files for discussion says that the uploader needs to be informed and the page could be notified with a caption, but the template Template:Ffd says that the caption should be added and the uploader could be notified. Which of these are correct, or should both the uploader be notified and a caption added to the article?
I have noticed this on screenshots of television episodes, where the files were uploaded years ago by a user who likely is no longer is active on Wikipedia and it is far more likely that users would have the television episode articles on their watchlist as compared to the screenshots themselves. By also adding the caption to the articles, it is far more likely to get users to add to the discussion, as can be seen after I added the captions to the Black Mirror articles. I asked one user for added a lot of screenshots here why they did not add the caption since it is a lot harder to add the caption afterwards especially if the template is set to "help=off" instead of when they added the template. Their response was if the file was not deleted, they did not want to have to go back to the article to removed the caption, see User talk:Koavf/Archive054#File for discussion captions in articles.
I think the added benefits of getting more discussion by notifying the uploader and adding a caption far outweighs making things slightly easier for discussion nominators and both sets of instructions should remove "consider" to make the practice mandatory. Aspects ( talk) 04:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
FFDC}}
isn't a straightforward task, and could be highly error-prone for a bot. On the other hand, removing {{
FFDC}}
where the outcome was keep is very simple. I'm willing to write the latter bot if there's interest. -
FASTILY 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Wonder if someone could help? On a page about Horwich RMI FC - an old football club now also listed on here as Leigh Genesis - there is a badge within the first paragraph. It states that the badge is owned by Leigh Genesis. This is incorrect. The badge is a new badge that was designed by Horwich RMI JFC - a new junior football club. The badge shown clearly shows Horwich RMI JFC. The JFC badge was designed in 2010 and has been used by the junior club since. The badge shown is NOT the original one used by the original club and is not owned by Leigh Genesis. Could it be removed please? Grundyhotpot ( talk) 13:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a big complicated deletion review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 16#Multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters which is 30 days old now and nobody has taken on closing it. It's been posted at WP:ANRFC for 15 days, but still no takers. We need an uninvolved admin who is familiar with FfD practices to take a look at the discussion and close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
1977 old case. not able to get any information form Ga. records. can I bye pass the State of Ga. and pull up FED. records? if so how to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luther madry ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I would like to nominate all files in Category:Former or old logos, Category:Alternate logos and Category:Anniversary logos to FFD. The rationale being (copied and sightly edited from similar nominations by JJMC89): Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. The issue is however that an equivalent to Commons’s VisualFileChange, which allows for mass nominations, doesn't exist here so if someone could nominate all these files for me and leave a notice on all the uploader's user pages it would be very appreciated. Jonteemil ( talk) 23:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
individually reviewed. Does that mean you just checked to see whether the files were in the same category or does that mean you checked to see how each file was being used? Perhaps you can clarify the following examples of files you nominated.You nominated File:Tampabaydevilrays10thanniversarypatch.gif, File:5th Anniversary.jpg, File:Canadiens100Anniversary.png and File:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.gif for being former logos not complying with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Do you remember checking them because they actually seem to be being used for primary identification purposes in their respective articles despite what you stated in your nomination statement? Do you remember checking File:San Diego Padres (2020) cap logo.svg? Did you see that essentially the same logo has been uploaded to Commons as File:SD Logo Brown.svg under a {{ PD-logo}} license? If the Commons file is correctly licensed than mostly all the is needed for the non-free is for it to be converted to the same license. Did you notice that File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg is being used in three different articles in not exactly the same way? You made no mention of the different uses in your nomination statement. Does that mean you felt (feel?) all three uses are equivalent and thus all are not NFCC compliant? Sometimes a non-free file is used multiple times. Some uses might be OK (i.e. "keep"), while others might not be OK (i.e. "remove"). A file doesn't necessarily need to be deleted if only some of its non-free uses aren't NFCC compliant.Finally, even though File:Birmingham Black Barons cap logo.png and File:HollywoodStarsCap.png were uploaded as non-free, they’re really nothing but letters on a colored background. Did you consider that the uploader might have simply made a mistake and chosen the wrong license?Whether you nominated all these files in one single edit or split them up into multiple edits, it’s still a huge number of files and many of them might have been able to resolve in other ways. Moreover, you nominated all the files for the same reason even that reason doesn't seem to apply to each and every one of them. That's what's making this seem like a "mass nomination" even though it technically wasn't done in a single edit. — Marchjuly ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Trying to argue that it was OK you to do this type of thing because JJMC89 did it will not get you very far at ANI.If you interpret it as such, you have all the right in the world to do that, but it isn't that easy.
Same goes for saying it's the administrator who deleted the files who's really at fault since they should've known better.I have a problem with this statement too. Why should I take responsibility if something is incorrectly deleted? Simply don't delete it? If it shouldn't have been deleted, then why was it?
so, trying to say others are also at fault because they didn't help is also not going to get you far at ANI., this is simply just wrong. No one is at fault for not helping me, obviously. The WP:MEATBOT criticism I actually agree with. What I did clearly is in violation of WP:MEATBOT, of which I wasn't aware beforehand. Jonteemil ( talk) 22:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a claim by Kim Erik Olsen that some of the images I used on Dorothy Olsen are not in fact PD, as I understood them to be. Could somebody who is better versed in PD image issues than I am please take a look? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject of FFD notifications seems to be brought up quite a number of times before (according to this page's archives), but it still seems to be a issue that occasionally appears (most recently at WT:NFCC#Image nominated for deletion simply because an editor doesn't like it) that might be causing some misunderstanding or even worse actual problems between editors. The current FFD instructions seem to only require that file uploaders be given due notice; it does mention that WikiProjects and other editors may be also noticed, but seems to say doing so is just an option. Same goes for whether to use {{ ffdc}}.
For obvious reasons, notifying the uploader makes sense and is consistent with other XFD pages. Files, however, tend to be different from other pages is that the actual FFD template is added to the file's page and most editors who actually use file probably never even bother to look at the file's page yet alone add it to their watchlists. In some cases, a file might be uploaded by someone who is no longer active or might not be connected to how many ways the file is being used. This seems to be the case with respect to non-free content much of the time; someone uploads a file years ago for use in one particular article, and other editors subsequently start adding the file to other articles. So, there are lots of cases, where a file nominated for discussion at FFD might not receive lots of comments simply because those who might be interested in the file's use aren't aware it's being discussed until after the file is deleted and removed from the article(s) where it's being used. There's Community Tech bot which adds notifications about Commons files to article talk page; so, maybe a bot could do the same for FFD. Anyway, the basic question is whether it should be required that FFD notifications be added to the articles where files nominated for discussion are being used. This could be resolved either via an RFC or through regular talk page discussion, but I think the question "Should FFD notifications on article talk pages be mandatory?" needs to be answered for once and for all.
There are some other issues that I'd also like input on like a WP:DELSORT type of set up for FFD, how to deal with files which have been nominated multiple times at FFD (e.g. an FFD version of {{ AFDx}}), possibly adding {{ oldffd}} to article talk pages as well as file talk pages, whether article talk page discussion or file talk page discussion should be required prior to FFD (as some noticeboards seem to require), etc., but resolving the notification question first is probably more important. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I've seen nominators making very similar rationales in individual listings without realizing the alternatives to mass-nominate related files into one section. And I have to merge those listings if they can let me. Are instructions on mass nominations not visible to most editors? If that's the case, then how do we improve the readability/visibility of such instructions? Speaking of instructions, I recently found out this generator to easily create sourcing of mass-nomination, mentioned by the instructions. If that's not the case, then what else can be done about individual listings using same rationales? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
On January 1, 2021, all works published in 1925 will enter public domain in the US. Presumably there will be files from 1925 that were previously deleted, but can be undeleted on January 1. Is there a coordinated/formal process for doing these undeletions (similar to c:COM:Public Domain Day)? Or does the normal process for undeletions apply (ask closing admin first, then go to deletion review if unresolved)? Wikiacc ( ¶) 22:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I have made a request for a bot at WP:BOTREQ to move old WP:Files for deletion pages to WP:Files for discussion similar to the move of WP:Votes for deletion to WP:Articles for deletion. Any thoughts? P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings everyone!
If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.
You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.
Thank you!
( MRaish (WMF) ( talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the privacy statement for this survey.
I started a discussion about this a few years back Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Delsort tags and appreciate the comments I received from Steel1943 and Czar at the time. A recent edit made to a FFD discussion by GiantSnowman, however, makes me think that now might be a good time to revisit this subject again and reconsider whether WP:DELSORT templates can or should be used in FFD discussions. GiantSnowman is the first person I ever noticed adding a delsort template to an FFD thread, but I've always wondered why it's not something done more often.
FFD doesn't seem to attract as many participants as some of the other XFD pages do and part of this could simply just be an over all lack of interest in file related matters. Lots of editors probably just treat files as an afterthought or minor aspect of Wikipedia, and just assume file usage to be pretty much automatic in all cases. Anyone who works with files knows there's more to it that this, but most people don't and the only time they might show up at a FFD discussion is when a file they uploaded or added to an article ends up being discussed. So many FFDs end up with minimal participation (sometimes just an nomination statement), and in some cases the results of these discussion end up being contested sometime down the road by someone who claims they weren't aware or the discussion or there's was insufficient participation or whatever. Some admins might treat a file deleted/removed in such a way as a sort of a WP:SOFTDELETE because of the low participation, but the FFD page actually states that files may deleted or removed after the FFD has run seven days in cases where "no objections to deletion or removal have been raised". In other XFD processes, this type of lack of participation seems to often end up being a "no-consensus keep", but the FFD instructions (particularly for non-free content) seem to imply that "no-consensus" means "delete/remove".
Another possible reason for the lack of participation at FFD might have to do with the notification processed involved. Lots of files don't have talk pages and in many cases the uploader (who might no longer be around) ends up being the only person notified when a file ends up at FFD. I personally try to use things like {{ ffdc}} when I can in an article, and also try to add at least one WikiProject banner to the talk pages for files I nominate for discussion because I'm hoping this might make it easier for others (besides the uploader) to know about the discussion. I've occasionally added a {{ Please see}} template to a WikiProject talk page or an article talk page, but I don't always do so.
Anyway, I'm wondering whether there's a way to enhance the notification process which at least will make it a bit easier for others to know that a file is being discussed. Delsort tags might be a good way to do this (if it's technically feesible), but there might other ways as well. I'm not necessarily suggesting notifications for individual editors who might be interested in a particular discussion, but more general notifications for article talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc. There's always going to be someone who complains that they weren't notified or that three people !voting isn't a consensus, but there's never going to be a fix for that. File use (particularly non-free content use) seems to be one of those things where 100% agreement is never going to be achieved, but a bit more can and should be done (at least in my opinion) to try and get more members of the community involved in these discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There's been another mass nomination of files made by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4#Files in Category:Cap logos. While it might be technically possible to nominate so many files at once and there doesn't appear to be any formal restriction placed on the number of files that can be nominated at once, it might be a good idea to discuss whether a proper discussion can be when so many files have been nominated at the same time. FFDs are expected to run at least seven days, and after seven day they can be closed per the nomination if nobody bothers to comment.
When you have a nomination of so many files at once but the reasons for nominating each file are clearly laid out by the nominator, then it might be possible to discuss the merits of each individual file. However, when you have a bunch of files nominated and the only reason given is to another page where there was some discussion aout possibly nominating the files, then there's a much lesser chance of it leading to a productive FFD discussion and a much greater chance of leading to what happened before at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Mass FFD nom and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil. Perhaps some of the files should be deleted for WP:NFCCP reasons, but perhaps there are also other ways of doing so that don't involve nominating 50+ files at once.
FWIW, I randomly clicked on ten of the files which were nominated and none of them weren't tagged with {{ FFD}} to indicate that they were being discussed at FFD. The uploaders of each of the files were also not notified that the files were nominated for discussion and there was no indication given on the articles where the files were being used (e.g. {{ ffdc}} or a {{ Please see}} on the talk page) that they had been nominated for discussion. Perhaps these are things which will be done later by the nominator or by some bot, but they're important things should be done because they help make the FFD process more transparent and known to those who might want to comment on the files. It also helps avoid editors complaining later on about files being deleted without any warning or notification. There also was no notification placed on the talk page of the WikiProject whose scope these files fall under which probably have been a good idea just as a courtesy even if it's not required simply because of the number of files involved and because it relates to image use in a infobox template being used by so many articles which fall under the project's scope. Some of the files nominated don't have file talk pages which means the alert page might not pick them up even if they are properly tagged for discussion.
While I think the nominator is acting in good-faith based upon whatever guidance is being given on the FFD page and the category talk page where this was sort of discussed, I also think it might be time to decide whether these types of mass nominations should be allowed, in principle, or at least try and provide more guidance regarding how to best do them. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Item 3 in the "Instructions for listing files for discussion" section on the main FFD page is about "giving notice". The instructions state Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}"
. To me, this sentence means that compliance isn't an option; in other words, if you nominate a file for discussion, you are responsible and required to notify at least the uploader of the discussion. The other part of Item 3 about adding {{
ffdc}} templates to captions and notifying WikiProjects does seem to be optional; doing so would be courteous perhaps, but it's not necessarily required. I think that most XFD nominations work the same way in that making the discussion as known to as many interested parties as possible is probably a good thing in general, but a specific individual notification is required to be given to the editor who created the page. Whether they end up responding or not is up to them, but notification is still required.
Anyway, I'm not sure whether it's something that just started happening recently or something that has been happening for awhile now, but there seems to be a bo which goes around informing file uploaders that one of their uploads is being discussed at FFD. I'm not sure if the bot only does this when the FFD nominator fails to do or forgets to do so and a certain amount of time has passed, or whether the bot will automatically do so each time a file ends up at FFD unless a human editor does it first. If the former is the case, I think that perhaps some clarification needs to be made that nomination is still mandatory and that intentionally not doing so because you think a bot will do it for you at some point is not really good practice. If the latter is the case and the bot will be triggered into action when {{ FFD}} template is added to the file's page, then maybe the process should be streamlined a bit and the FFD page tweaked to reflect this.
I don't use scripts when I edit, but lots of editors do. I don't know how things like WP:TWINKLE work per se, but lots of editors do seem to use it to try and make things a bit more efficient. Many these scripts have become so common these days that things like manual notifications are now more of the exception than the rule. If that's the case and a script or bot can do things more efficiently, then maybe once again it might be a good idea to take a look at the FFD process and see if it can be streamlined a bit. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why this is being reverted [3]. WP:NFCR clearly states that WP:FFD is the place to discuss this. Since {{ don't know}} and {{ license change}} are clearly two templates related to non-free content review, it is obviously of concern to the centralized discussion that NFCR was merged to, which is FFD.
-- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I just ran a quarry looking for files of formats that can't be uploaded anymore. What I found was 44 files, 43 of which are bmp files. I'm not really sure how these should be handled but, I think this situation feels suboptimal. Thoughts? -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI {{ File with non-existent categories}} and {{ File with non-existent templates}} have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to hold back on low participation, but I can't. Even after File PROD became effective in 2017, and even with decreased amount of nominations since the File PROD, FFD participation has been still usually low. In my experiences, ones who replied to my listings have been usually uploaders and regulars and sometimes those wanting to defend certain files. Participation as ever has been still low. Is this how FFD will have been? If so, then... I guess I feel powerless? I have become unsure whether inviting others, including those unenthusiastic, for input would help much. -- George Ho ( talk) 12:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI, two file cleanup categories are nominated for deletion, Category:Reuploaded deleted images and Category:Verified reuploaded deleted images and Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale for more than 7 days -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
FYI {{ File page NFCC concerns tag}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 18:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [ talk 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Template:MPL 2.0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, file license tag Template:Don't know ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for renaming. See template talk:Don't know -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 03:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
When a file has multiple revisions by different uploaders, should the most recent uploader, the first uploader, or all uploaders be notified? 93 ( talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an image with a confusing title: File:Light Blade weapon system.jpg, which in fact shows not Iron Beam, but Light Blade. How can I rename it? Loew Galitz ( talk) 04:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Substitute int: messages. We're thinking about running a bot that will affect a couple thousand files. I don't think file namespace stuff has a noticeboard, so posting this in a couple conspicuous spots where I know file gurus hang out. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Image-warn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion, as this is a file handling template, and this is the noticeboard for informing file-involved users of such issues (now that other NBs have been closed down), I've left this message. -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 06:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
All three files discussed on June 3 were deleted without formally closing the nominations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure people are aware that Flickr now lets you see the license history of a photo as of today. This means we may be able to restore certain files that were deleted because we couldn't be sure they were freely licensed at some point in time. :-) Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The YouTube account for Warner Music New Zealand is (accidentally?) uploading copyrighted songs and their snippets under a "Creative Commons" license. Commons is currently hosting an entire Nicki Minaj performance of copyrighted songs, and parts of several music videos from Dua Lipa, Charlie Puth, and Cardi B (many other artists as also seen here). This sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion as the same channel is starting to host straight-up studio verisons of copyrighted songs under a CC license as well. My deletion request was closed on Commons but I wanted to bring it to this forum's attention if someone more familiar with that site wants to take this forward.-- N Ø 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There are quite a number of files hosted here on the basis that they are in the public domain since they were published anonymously in a 1938 UK publication, "Film Star Who's Who on the screen" This is problematic for two reasons, as firstly Commons discussions have concluded that these images are usually taken from films, voiding the anonymous publication claim; more importantly, they would all be copyrighted in the US anyway since the URAA restored their copyright until 2034. It must have come up somewhere, but I cannot find any hints on whether it is possible (or advisable) to nominate more than one file for deletion at the same time, as it is on Commons. Or would that make it too difficult to assess potential non-free uses? Felix QW ( talk) 19:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
|header=
for the "Ffd2" template, you'll be able to change the name of the thread header from a file name to something else (e.g. "Film Star Who's Who on the screen files"). When you complete the "Ffd2" template, just add the name of the first file you want to discuss, and add the name of that file's uploader in the |uploader=
parameter, but give the reasons why all of the files need to be discussed in the |reason=
paramater. When you've done that, click "Show preview". If everything is OK, add the remaining files using the "Ffd2a" template. Click "Show preview" again and if everything looks OK, you can cut out the "Ffd2" templates, click "Publish changes", edit the thread, paste the "Ffd2" templates back into the thread right below the syntax for the first file (but above the reason), click "Show preview" and then finally click "Publish changes". I don't think there's a limit on the number of files that can be discussed at once, but the more there are the harder they might be to discuss; in addition, you can only use {{
Ffd notice multi}} for 26 files at a time. Multi-file nominations tend to be easier to deal with if you break them up into smaller groups (e.g. by uploader, by reason, by time period, by format), particulary when you're talking about 10 or more files. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)