Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 3

message: Ok, I noticed this page has reached over 100kb in size. With the amount the community has grown, the number of files that have been uploaded has increased a lot. But, since we made rulings in the past about images and other things, like the Commons, the amount of images being IFD'd is increasing 10 fold. What I wish to suggest is to have a format like what WP:FA does. What we do is that for each new day, a page is created. It will be called Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Foo. What we do is on each page, we place the heading === Foo ===. On each page, the listing of images will procede as normal. However, to include the page on here, it will be added as . This will reduce the size of the page and possible edit conflicts. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A benefit of that scheme is that we could easily start archiving nominations here.  The only problem is that someone would have to create the appropriate day subpage every day.  It would be slightly non-obvious, and people might mess it up.  Anyway, let's give it a try for a week and see how it goes.  dbenbenn | talk 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got reverted when I tried it out, so what we can do is start it tomorrow. Plus, I do not mind creating the pages daily. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first page is at . Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion 

message: I'd like to run a straw poll regarding the possibility of listing 50 images, en masse, from , every week, as a means of dealing with the gigantic size of the category? JesseW 21:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, but I personally think that if the source is unknown and it is never used, it should be killed on the spot. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If it's not an orphan, it should go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Coffee 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No objection here; just don't list non-orphans.  Note there was some trouble around February with User:Quadell doing the same thing.  Apparently a photo belonging to a Wikimedia Foundation board member had no info, and got deleted.  dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also list a metric assload of images at Special:Unusedimages. I checked a few weeks ago, and there are about 40000 images there. O_O" Coffee 18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jimbo hinted on IRC that we could start speedying images that are not used and not sourced, even if we tell folks to source it. But we should only do that if the image is not being used. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been thinking about the pile of bad images too.  A bot could change the unknown template to an unknown-delete-week|September 9 template warning of forthcoming deletion, then sweep back through in a week and delete those images which haven't been updated/fixed.  An appropriate Category would allow review.  (SEWilco 20:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the many images that we are now dealing with, and not too many folks are helping us with IFD or wanting to join IFD, a bot really sounds good right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to say, some automatic assistance would be extremely helpful, but perhaps a good start would be to change the format of the listings on IFD. Checking if an image can be deleted is very tedious; in the worst case (GFDL images moved to Commons), one has to bring up the image here, find the image on the Commons if there is no ((NowCommons)) tag, make sure all past revisions have been moved to commons, and make sure the most recent uploader (or all uploaders?) has been notified, and only then can such an image be deleted (correct me, if I'm wrong about this, please). Most of these checks are completely routine and could be carried out by a bot. If we don't trust the bot with deletion, it could at least flag images that pass all the criteria and can be deleted immediately.  Alternatively, the admins' job would be easier if the listings contained links to the uploader's talk page and any other pages that may need to be checked prior to deletion. Or relaxing some of the procedures would also save time: for example, I wouldn't mind if images can be deleted without notifying the uploader if they are preserved somewhere; e.g., if it's simple renaming or a move to the Commons, where no information is lost and deletion can easily be undone. --MarkSweep✍ 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think that informing the uploader should be more of an optional courtesy rather than a requirement... It isn't required to inform the creators of pages that their submissions are listed at AFD/VFD or at any other Wikipedia process. Besides, it rarely makes a difference as to whether the image is deleted or not. And it would make it much easier on admins. Coffee 05:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original motivation for this was that image deletion is permanent, whereas articles can be undeleted.  However, in many cases that's not an issue: there are a number of cases (e.g. if an image is listed here as OB) where no information is lost by deletion, and others (e.g. UE) where we presumably don't care if information is lost. --MarkSweep✍ 07:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if I listed 50 images from {{tl|unknown}} en masse, every week? 

message: Tangentially related to this, there's also Template:ifd2, which I created recently to facilitate listing items here, on the IFD page itself.  The use of a template may make it easier for everyone to ensure that the current procedures are being followed: nominators are reminded to notify the uploader, and admins get a link to the notification message.  Nominations could be made as a sequence of 3 edits: Template:ifd on the image page, Template:ifd2 on WP:IFD, and Template:idw on the uploader's talk page. I don't know how the process could be simplified further without using a bot. --MarkSweep✍ 22:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:ifd2

message: You only need to glance over the current listings on WP:IFD to get an idea of the role User:Nv8200p has played here recently. The enthusiasm he has shown for image cleanup tasks is impressive, and we could certainly use his help dealing with the janitorial aspects of this page. Please consider voting on his ongoing RfA. --MarkSweep✍ 16:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign spam

message: One user has listed a number of images in pdf that he uploaded. The links can be found at User talk:GordonWattsDotCom#Notes to Self. Are these allowed? If not, can they be speedied? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, they are allowed. They are covered under the "other media" for deletion. But if he uploaded them and now wants them gone, and no one objects, they can be speedied. I have deleted .ogg files before from here and from CSD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pdf images 

message: Please take note the conversation RE: the interplay of IfD and Vfd, with respect to images that are orphand by a Vfd that I am attempting to start at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#IfD.2FVfD Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Proposal/Discussion to note 

message: I've generated a report at User:TheCoffee/Orphan images that lists orphan images by user. There's currently a huge number of unused orphan images, hopefully this will make it easier to purge unnecessary, unloved images. For instance, yesterday I informed mav of his many orphan images, and listed about 200 of them en masse. Coffee 14:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might cause more problems, especially for good users.  Sometimes, you need to upload a few images before placing them into articles.  Also, sometimes trolls and vandals like user Hipocrite above immediately attempt to delete hard work.  I understand trying to get rid of all those images, but it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Noitall 14:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't want to throw away the baby... On the contrary, these lists could help coordinate with uploaders to make sure we keep what's needed and delete what's not. For example, I could tell User:Gerald Farinas that he has 59 images currently not linked to or used on any article, and ask him if any images should be put to use rather than deleted. Coffee 16:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of orphan images by user 

message: I've made an "old discussions" section on the page where we can simply link to subpages of discussions older than 7 days and waiting to be processed, rather than using transclusion to include them on the page. This could help keep down the size of the page, especially since the backlog often goes back pretty far. Coffee 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments? That's odd. I'll go ahead and make the change then... Coffee 04:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussions section 

message: There's been an addition to the criteria for speedy deletion:
:"Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded."
I can't find the discussion that made this rule, but it must be legitimate since Jimbo himself was deleting images by this rule. Coffee 15:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Coffee, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23398569. Zach (Sound Off) 18:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New speedy delete guideline 

message: I see a lot of images recently uploaded that are orphans. Are they fair game if I put them up for ifd the same day? An example would be :Image:0022.jpg. --Bash 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The second image you mentioned has a copyright statement at the bottom, so I've slapped a copyvio tag on it. Stoive 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah they are fair game, although if it's a "good" image it might be better to warn the uploader and put it in , although considering the 8000+ item backlog for no source images (not so much in the notified variant) listing them on IFD is defenently faster if you want to get rid of them fast. --Sherool 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that images once deleted are lost for ever would mean circumspection for OR pictures. I may upload an image to use it in an article a couple of days later. I don't think tagging an image as OR the same day is a fair deal - a week may be better. For images falling under other reasons, the same day tagging is perfectly acceptable IMHO. --Gurubrahma 17:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How long before images can be posted up for Ifd?

message: appears to have been recently deleted. I can't imagine why: the official seal of a government is never subject to limitations on use in a reference work. If someone can explain what is going on here, could you please respond here and ping me on my talk page, since  watchlisting this very busy page isn't much use for seeing if there has been a response. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the name is a mispelling, I went to the upload log  and from what it told me, it was never uploaded. The deletion log told me the same thing.  Zach (Sound Off) 17:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting out of hand 

message: This is getting weird. The page for Oct. 8 isn't showing up. Purging doesn't work. What will get it to show up? --Bash 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I'm an idiot. Never mind. --Bash 22:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't October 8 showing up on the main page?

message: ARE YOU BLIND?
It's not a copyvio, did you ever notice that big fat promotional tag on the bottom of the page?
:Hi Karrmann, I assume you're talkin about :Image:Stratus.jpg? The tag says it is a promotional picture, but it does not indicate a source. We need to know who created the picture, and with what purposes, for wikipedia to be able to use the picture under "fair use". So if you downloaded the picture from internet, can you please give us the address where you found it; and if you got it from another source, please tell us what it was.
:And please do not remove  tags from the description page before the problems with the image have been solved; and don't remove  tags unless you also tell us the source, as you did at :Image:FordContour.jpg. Eugene van der Pijll 14:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the , because fair use is invalid without a source.  Furthermore, I've retagged the image as having no source, and because I first tagged it no source (removal of tag by Karrman notwithstanding) October 13th, I used that date.  At any rate, no one will be prematurely removing the ifd or no source, because I'm watching the page.  Superm401 | Talk 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A source has been added, but its a consumer guide, so not a genuine promo... Justinc 16:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAtratus.jpg 

message: When an image used by vitute of a fair-use claim has been orphaned, you can tag it with  or the long form . If the image has been replaced by an improved or better licensed image, you can use  or it's long form . Both of these templates place the image in , and both make the image eligable for speedy deletion after 7 days. DES (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for orphaned fair use images 

message: I moved the "Instructions for administrators" to a subpage, since it only affects a very small percentage of people that come to this page, and it clutters the page for non-admins. Coffee 19:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Instructions for administrators" 

message: Would anyone object to removing the NE (not English) and OF (out of focus) abbreviations from the listing instructions? In the past 10 days of nominations, "NE" has not been used at all, and "OF" has only been used 6 times (and never as the sole reason for deletion). I think the benefits of trimming the confusing abbreviation-cruft outweigh the benefits of using NE and OF. (By the way, I tried to look for the discussion that produced these abbreviations. There actually was no discussion, and all the abbreviations were simply added by a user in this edit). Coffee 10:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: Is it possible to have a template like  to be visible on articles so that readers can tell which images are nominated? Is not too desirable that people discover the nomination only by red links on articles, or by edits to articles with edit summaries saying the images have no source and already deleted. — Instantnood 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could insert boilerplate into the image captions, like at WP:PUI.  (Or we could overwrite the image with something saying "This image is listed on WP:IFD, please go there to comment, blah blah blah", but that isn't really workable.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boilerplate to captions is not quite workable either, if the image is linked to many articles. — Instantnood 05:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the impression that IFD is for getting rid of images that are simply unneeded. They probably shouldn't be listed here if they're used in articles. Coffee 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Many images that are used in articles are deleted because they don't have clear copyright information. — Instantnood 07:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The only way something like that could work currently would be to have some sort of "this image is being considered for deletion" stamp we could slap on the image itself and then upload it over the image. If we descide to keep it the previous revision can be reverted to return the image to normal... It would require the nominator to have a fair knowledge of graphics software though. It might be possible to modify the server side thumbnailing engine to include some sort of boilplate text or symbol in top of the image itself if a scertain "magic" tag was added to the image description page, but I suspect it's not an enhancement that would get top priotiry any time soon. --Sherool 16:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd like to propose to add a link to this template to the instruction section. — Instantnood 18:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for notification

message: Several times I've seen someone list an image for deletion in part or in whole because its an orphan when the nominator is the very one who just removed it from the article(s).  This seems misleading to me, to say the least.  It's just as if someone had listed an article on AfD and justified it in part by the fact that nothing linked to it, when they themselves had just removed all the links.  Has this issue been discussed before?  Postdlf 02:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  If they remoe the image from one or more articles, they are required to list the articles on the IFD nomination.  Failure to do so automatically voids the nomination. Superm401 | Talk 04:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *IF* we spot they have done so. We currently have no way of finding out where an image used to be used! Plugwash 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Superm401 | Talk 04:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any plan to fix this loop hole?  For example, fix the software to automatically save the "what links here" information for all images in a monthly archive.  The archive can be kept in a way that only the unlinking is recorded (save only the deltas).  Before an image is deleted, check in the archive where the image was linked to before it became an orphan and verify if the unlinking is just vandalism.  Kowloonese 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Orphans" 

message: Is an IFD bot necessary to add each day subpage?  Please let me know. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IFD Bot? 

message: I'm sure most people doing the deleting are competent but there seems to be at the very least a couple of incompetent fools (polite description, that. They could be described as a lot worse) at work. So far this month I have had to 
* trace back images I uploaded under GFDL to WP because some pillock deleted them even though their status was unambiguously clear and stated explicitly. 
* just in case you are wondering why I did not come here to defend the image here, the person responsible didn't bother to notify me of the proposed deletion. But then given that the images were explicitly declared to user created images being released to WP I doubt if the deleter bothered to nominate them either. If s/he had everyone would have seen that they were GFDL images. 
* clean up articles where people deleting articles never bothered to fix the mess they left behind in broken links to no longer existing images. (1 feature article I stumbled into some weeks ago was a complete mess, with 9 deleted images, none of them removed from the text.) 
* trace back images from other sites that copied WP because some asshole (and that is a polite name for them) had deleted perfectly valid images whose only problem was that the downloader, possibly a newbie, had simply put the wrong category on them. A five second check of the original website stated on the images showed that they were perfectly OK, just in the wrong category. 
* cleaned up the mess after people (maybe only one person) deleted images because they were in the commons but never bothered to make sure the commons image was linked to the articles that were using them. 
Hosts of images are being deleted 
# without the original downloader being notified, even though the downloader may well be able to supply any missing information and make deletion unnecesary.
# because some users don't seem to realise that images downloaded a couple of years ago weren't required to supply all the information we now need. All they need to do is check with the original downloader to see if they can get the information, or do a quick google search and find the information themselves.
# because the deleter clearly doesn't know the laws on fairuse, crown copyright, etc.
The bottom line should be that every user must be notified in every case if an image is nominated for deletion. If the user is not notified then the image should never ever be deleted. Looking at talk pages it seems as if very few people are been notified. If people aren't notified, or if perfectly valid images are deleted, or if pages aren't fixed after deletions, then it undermines the whole credibility of this process, and those people who are being careful and are notifying and are cleaning up after them can end up getting flak from people because of the screw-ups of the incompetent few. If you are going to delete stuff then please please do it properly, to images that need deletion, after you have contacted the downloader and after you have that there is no other alternative. Incompetent deletions made Wikipedia look bad, leave articles a mess and piss off genuine users who have been careful to only download legal images only to find someone else's incompetence has screwed up their work. FearÉIREANN 06:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has happened to me several times.  I uploaded some pictures that I took myself and granted GFDL to wikipedia.  Then months later, some fools replaced the GFDL images with a copyrighted image.  Meanwhile, the unlinked image was deleted because it was orphaned.  Then a little later, the copyrighted image was deleted due to copyright violation.  The end result is that the article loses a legitimate image over time.  I normally don't save the pictures if they were taken just for wikipedia uploading.  And I don't bother repeating the effort either because the opportunity to capture such image is gone, or it is pointless to contribute but got trashed by some fools.  This big loop hole needs to be plugged.  Somehow, wikipedia needs to track some kind of unlinking history.  Otherwise, this can be easily abused by the vandals. Kowloonese 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incompetent deletions 

message: Images :image:LocationSerbiaAndMontenegro2.png and :image:Scg2.jpg are used for vandalization of the article Serbia and Montenegro. While I would not have anything against this images in the future (when/if Kosovo becomes independent), in this moment images are used for spreading false informations. So, should those images be deleted? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a comment for two images 

message: I put an image for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 November 30.  It shows up on that subpage, but not on the main Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion in the November 30 section.  Should it?  I can't seem to edit that section directly, so I assume it's supposed to update automatically from the subpage somehow.  If so, the page should probably say that (and maybe explain how it works), because as it is it's not completely clear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind — it's there now.  (There was just a delay, for some reason.)  It still might be good to note on the page that additions to the subpage will eventually show up on the main one, and if the delay is common that might be noted too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main page shows the full contents of the subpage automatically (it includes them using template syntax).  However, it sometimes takes a little while to update (for caching reasons).  To make it do so immediately, you can purge the cache.  There was a link to do so on the page, but it was needlessly confusing.  I've added a more intuitive version using standard syntax (see top of page, in bold). Superm401 | Talk 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That makes more sense. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little bit confused 

message: I was browsing randomly, and I came across the Autofellatio article, which features a rough drawing of a man fellating himself. Does this really belong on Wikipedia? I know that if I were doing research in a library or public place, I could be in very deep trouble for displaying such an image. I am not familiar with the image deletion process, but I think something should be done. Avengerx 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a long and checkered history with regard to images for this article.  Suffice to say, the drawing is much less objectionable than other images that have been used to illustrate this article.  Note that Wikipedia is not censored, so I'd say the chances you can get the image removed from the article are close to 0%.  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autofellatio article

message: I've added a new reason, NI (No image) to describe a class of problem p[icked up by WP:UI and which is described there as follows:
: "There's a class of issue new (to me, at least) which is that of blank image description pages which have no link to an image, but for which there is an identically named image on the commons. An example (at least until it is deleted) is :Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Day (1881).jpg. The symptom of this problem is that the page has no File history section, and does have the This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons infobox. The correct course of action is to list the image description page on WP:IFD with a reason of NI (no image)." --Tagishsimon (talk)
::Couldn't things like that just be speedied? It seems like a common sense thing to me, and it wouldn't help to have a 5-day waiting period on IFD. Coffee 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep.  I think that would count as a "Corrupt or empty image".  dbenbenn | talk 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course they can be speedied - not just orphan image descriptions but images as well. Just use  or  if the name is different. (The nominator for speedy should check that all articles are using the right version, that the commons version appears to have a valid licence, etc.) -- RHaworth 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images can not be speedied because a version is on commons.  WP:CSD says "This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with  or  instead." Superm401 - Talk 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New reason: NI (No image)

message: Can anyone knowledgeable (I'm not and IANAL) about copyrights have a look at Special:Contributions/Eacinva - he has made 3 edits to date, all on image talk and about copyrights. --Gurubrahma 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image talk by a new user 

message: Looking over Kingofsuap's contributions, all he has done is uploaded a bunch of pdfs listed as images.  I plan to block him if he doesn't respond in any way to my requests for an explanation.  However, I wonder if I can speedy delete all his images.  All the images before Image:R24.pdf (when I told him that they may be deleted) are listed as copyrighted, and I will remove, but after that, they are all GFDL.  Would those require a full IfD discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, yes.  See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media. Superm401 | Talk 02:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All these pdfs have been deleted -Nv8200p talk 15:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingofsaup 

message: I want to inform suspicious uploads by people that are using the GFDL tags. User:Oahc has uploaded :Image:Laura Breckenridge.jpg (clearly can see the Zap2it.com tagged which I was suspicious. All of their images are copyrighted and restrict usage.), :Image:Devon Aoki.jpg, :Image:Village.chapel.1866.jpg, etc., Also, I suspect Oahc is User:Xtremeruna21 and User:Enitsirhc because they used the same file name structure (":Image:My principal, Steve!.jpg" by Enitsirhc and ":Image:My english teacher, Sue!.jpg" by Xtremeruna21, copyright terms structure, and using GFDL tags. --J. Nguyen 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I stopped chicken out and ask the person. I read through the Zap2It's Terms of Service]. They are cleary not using GFDL agreement. I will dispute the possible unfree image of :Image:Laura Breckenridge.jpg later this week. I will investigate the Devon Aoki image when I have the time. --J. Nguyen 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect User:Xtremeruna21, User:Enitsirhc, User:Oahc, User:Jessica Liao, User:Kyla, are the same person. The user also uploaded :Image:Seventeen Magazine picture of a 20 year old Kristin Kreuk.jpg. --Carly 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspicious uploads

message: Can someone help me to decide wich images on ROSE Online page should be deleted? I think the page has too many un-needed pictures--Melaen 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ROSE Online]] 

message: A new user (User: Samhita) uploaded this image which is a copyright violation.  I don't think she has figured out many of the polocies yet espically what talk pages are for (she has been blanking at least one because she did not like what people were discussing ).  In anyevent she has added this image to the article [[and keeps adding it to the article Bill Weasley in a way that is bordeirng on vandalism at least 9 times.  Is there some equvilent of speedy deletion for copyright images? Dalf | Talk 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please remove copyrighted image which is activly being used in disruptive edits 

message: On the assumption that most readers of this page are interested in images, I thought it a good idea to let you all know that in response to some recent uploads of anamorphic 3D images, and advocacy of their use as primary images in articles,  there's a new proposed guideline/policy about the use of 3D images in Wikipedia, and the discussion is just getting started. Wider input from image experts would be beneficial.  Please consider contributing your thoughts on it here Wikipedia_talk:3D_Illustrations. Apologies to those who consider this spam. Conversely, suggestions where else to mention it gratefully received. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:3D_Illustrations]] 

message: I just want to be clear; if a user uploads an image of himself/herself it is grounds for deletion right? (UE) Is it speedy able? (provided it's only used on there user page) Thanks, Flying Canuck 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming a correct license, I think we should be able to speedy these, after an appropriate lag period--say, thirty or forty years--in case they become notable in that time. Demi T/C 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there official word, or even consensus, about this anywhere?  My understanding is that user pages do not have to be "encyclopedic," whatever that might mean in the context, and that absent disruption users were generally free to put what they want on user pages.  It would appear to follow an image meant to be used on user pages does not have to be encyclopedic, and unless some other grounds exist for deleting it (copyvio &c) it should stay.  Smerdis of Tlön 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace (user pages are OK)."  --Interiot 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my understanding as well.  A couple years ago, I uploaded a small cartoon (:Image:Ihcoyc.JPG) for my user page — it's currently in use on another as well — which I made myself from a PD image that appeared on Encyclopédie; had seen other original images on user pages.  It was nominated for deletion Feb. 7 on the grounds that it was unencyclopedic and did not appear in an article.  Wanted to make sure that I had done nothing wrong here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it does not meet any criterion for speedy deletion. It can be nominated for deletion on WP:IFD, although it would be unlikely to succeed. It is quite acceptable for users to upload images of themselves to use on their user page, provided it is licensed appropriately. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on that is that "UE" apply to stuff that doesn't belong in the ensyclopedia, and that is not used in a "reasonable" way on a userpage. So A picture of me and my family posting at some famous landmark would not be acceptable for use in the article about the landmark (should have a "plain" photo of just the landmark instead if at all possible). However it would be fine to use a few such images on my userpage. However if someone is just uploading theyr whole family photo album I'd say deleting most of them as "unensyclopedic" or just plain WP:NOT would be in order. Orphanded user images should be fair game too, if they are not going to at least put it on theyr userpage delete it, Wikipedia is not a file hosting service. I've seen people who for example use Wikipedia to host theyr forum signature and related pictures, and what's worse there was one guy who uploaded all the graphics for his commercial site and hotlinked it off Wikipedia, to save bandwidth I guess (needles to say all his images where deleted and I believe he was banned too after trying to re-upload them). --Sherool (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User images 

message: I was wondering what the deletion policy was for someone uploading multiple copies of the same photo? I noticed 4 identical thumbnails on the Special:Newimages page. Special:Contributions/Veronicaluis was the user to do this. --Andrew c 03:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. the criteria for speedy deletion allow the deletion of redundant images.  I got rid of the duplicates. Superm401 - Talk 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be VERY carefull you aren't distroying the version history of images when doing this sort of thing though. I can't count the number of times when i've wished i could revert an image (usually a poor recreation attempt from the SVG brigade) but can't as the original was under a different name and has therefore since been deleted. Plugwash 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Images, different file name 

message: This category lists images with the  tag, which says "this image... will soon be deleted without further warning". Despite this, I found images that have been tagged with this for... a long time. Shouldn't the warning live up to its promise? KramarDanIkabu 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the tag again.  It says only that images with the tag uploaded after May 19, 2005 can be deleted on sight.  dbenbenn | talk 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded several images after May 19, most of which I tagged with . None of them have been deleted. KramarDanIkabu 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Images used with permission]] 

message: Based on WP:PROD, if we had a tag like ; we could produce a page like this but for images, that people could review.  It seems the vast bulk of image deletins goes uncontested, so there's little need for listing them on a discussion page.  --Rob 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, at the very least we should have date based categories, like no source and no copyright. The current system is unwieldy. - cohesiont 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD-like approach for images? 

message: This image has been deleted. Because the search index has not been updated since, I was able to find out that it had been listed here:
:Wikipedia:Untagged images/2005dec13-36
It was an example background of a search box, to search, you guessed it, Wikipedia. I know that officially the Wikipedia logo (on which it was based) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation, but I didn't think it would be such an issue as to get the image deleted without warning. Also the one who deleted the image should have checked the "what links here" button and orphaned it first. Shinobu 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia desktop search box background.png 

message: An editor , has uploaded hundreds of images under license tags that are obviously not correct. I have warned the user, and added speedy tags to many of these, but there are many more images to check, See . ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with this editor? 

message: I recently tagged two images for deletion per the following guidelines:
WP:NOT - "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted."
Example reason from the IFD page - "UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia."
Following the procedure listed on the Images for Deletion page, I tagged :Image:Playing.jpg and :Image:PoodleM1.jpg for image deletion, added the notices to the user's talk page, and listed the images for discussion under April 7 on the IFD page.
The user then removed the notice from his/her talk page with an edit summary of "rvv" , removed the tags from the images        
 and , and then removed the entry from the April 7 section of the IFD page .
What is the purpose of IFD if the uploader may remove ifd tags at will? 65.127.231.10 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anons don't get any respect here.  Also, the images show that they are being used on personal user pages, which doesn't fall under the "unencylcopedic" reasoning; users are allowed to have some personal pictures (how many I don't know).  Plus you upset an admin.  So, those are the reasons why your nominations were removed.  But SlimVirgin could have at least informed you why they were removed... - Hbdragon88 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of IFD tags from images 

message: :Originally posted on WP:VPP but also posting here as this is where those responsible for deletion of images hang out Plugwash 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to be far more carefull about deleting images

message: I have a question regarding deletion.  I proposed :Image:481956501 m.gif for deletion on April 22.  A reason for its deletion was provided, that it violated a Wikipedia guideline regarding only including corporate logos that are "reasonably familiar".  The uploader of the image commented that "If the image doesn't qualify, I have no problem with its deletion. However, the company website has a disclaimer saying all replications of company logos are OK as long as profit is not made from their design, and frankly I just think the page looks better with the logo than without it."  As of today, the image has not been deleted.  If the image is in violation of the guideline, and if that is sufficent grounds for deletion, then no objections to the deletion of the image have been made, and therefore it should be deleted.  However, no comment by an administrator has been left on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 April 22 to indicate their assessment of the image and the justifications put forward for its deletion.  Could an adminstrator's explanation please be given for the keeping of this image, or may it now be deleted? Kurieeto 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Violation of a Wikipedia guideline does not mean an image has to be deleted. Violation of a Wikipedia policy is grounds for deletion. The guideline says "should" not must. Strawberryfire also showed a desire to keep the logo. So I see no reason or concensus that the image need be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion re: guidelines 

message: I usually delete images from :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Is it okay if I delete those images listed here too, eventhough the guideline says a minimum of five days? / Fred-Chess 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see why not.  Jkelly 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. I've deleted the images nominated by User:Bkell and all train images uploaded by User:Our Phellap (nominated by Rory) . / Fred-Chess 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok to delete Commons images listed here? 

message: I have newly uploaded and updated the official parliament photo of Bernard Bigras. Can you delete the October 5, 2004 picture. The October 5, 2004 picture and it's uploaded by Earl Andrew. Can someone or I delete the old picture of Bernard Bigras. Let me know if it's OK to delete the October 5, 2004 picture. Okay? Thanks! Steam5 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Bernardbigras.jpg]] 

message: Under the instructions of how to nominate an image for deletion, it says:
If you remove an image from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.
While there are a few conscientious editors who do this, this step has otherwise been all but ignored.  This means that the pictures that survive the deletion process are often deleted anyway because they appear to be orphans.  I've been the victim of this a couple of times, and seen it happen to others as well.  Nominators often don't make a list of the articles the image was in because editing out an image (or just removing it), and then listing every page the image appeared on is very tedious, and so many just don't do it.  But, there has already been an option in place for a long time that is much easier to use for the editor, and easy to reverse if the picture survives deletion: adding  to the photos caption.  Again though, too few use it.  This method has four benefits: (1) it is simply a matter of copying and pasting it into the caption (requiring minimum editing), (2) it is already pre-formatted in the  template, so it is convenient to use, (3) it actually invites community review, and (4) if the photo survives deletion, the pages are still linked.  It also has an added benefit that if the image doesn't survive deletion, the image and all traces of it can be properly deleted, because Wikipedia is peppered with articles that on the edit page have "edited-out images" that really were deleted ages ago, and these hidden notes throw off the formatting of the article.
Essentially, I'm proposing that the editing out method for images facing deletion be abolished, and the  caption method become standard practice, which I think would be a win-win situation for everyone.--Esprit15d 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great idea! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen several orphaned images without copyright problems, but I may not be able to link them at articles.--Jusjih 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfairly orphaned images 

message: The project page here provides: " if an image has a fair use tag but no fair use rationale and was uploaded after May 4 2006". Template:Logo has this sentence: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." As I just had a conflicting opinion with User:Hiding regarding giving fair use rationales, will template:Logo itself be sufficient or shall uploaders provide further rationales?--Jusjih 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear wording at Template:Logo 

message: I just uploaded these NASA images
Image:Neptune triton.jpg, taken from this site:
[]
and
Image:Small web.jpg, taken from this site:
[].
I was wondering how to verify the source information. I assume they're out of copyright, since they're NASA images. Serendipodous 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help understanding source information

message: As I just nominated X Vietnam (album) for deletion and one other user just voted for deletion, I would like to ask one thing. There is a fair use :Image:Q-68.jpg at the article for deletion. Shall I nominate that fair use image for deletion now or later after the article is deleted and the image becomes orphaned?--Jusjih 14:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for keeping an eye on such things.  Assuming that the article is deleted, just tag the image with  and it will be placed into our image deletion category.  Jkelly 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your answer. The article X Vietnam (album) that I once nominated for deletion is now voted to be kept after its producer, sufficiently notable, has been noted, so I will not nominate :Image:Q-68.jpg for deletion at this time (unless additional fair use rationale is required but missing).--Jusjih 12:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image used at an article being considered for deletion 

message: I would like to delete :Image:Kmegt.JPG; would IFD be the place to do it? --HappyCamper 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why you would like to d othat? --Hunter 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't think the image is a proper rendition of what it is supposed to represent. --HappyCamper 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also a copyvio, as a derivative work of an unfreely-licensed image.  I have tagged it as such.  Jkelly 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. In this case, I still have another question...if I find an image that doesn't particularily improve an article, is it still brought to IFD? --HappyCamper 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Jkelly 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help :-) --HappyCamper 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to delete an image 

message: A long time ago, before I knew how image resizing works on Wikipedia, I uploaded :image:St Isaacs SPb large.jpg and :image:St Isaacs SPb.jpg.  These are two versions of the same image, with different resolutions.  We should somehow delete the small one and replace it with the large one, but I don't know how best to go about it. --Smack (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you upload the high-res one as :Commons:Image:St Isaacs SPb.jpg, and I will delete the local copies?  Jkelly 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well.  I thought it was on the commons already.  Will do. --Smack (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate image 

message: I see this template being used to tag certain images . Is this compatible with WP copyright policy? There is no statement about being able to use these images for commercial or non-commercial use. Can somebody clarify this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any image so tagged that doesn't allow for commercial or derivative work should either be speedied (per WP:CSD I3) or brought here for deletion.  Jkelly 16:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images?