Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 4

message: Yes, it can. See here. thanks Brion. Martin 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this appears only to apply to images deleted after that change. From some random sampling, images deleted after about 04:30 UTC, June 16 2006 can be undeleted. -Splash - tk 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media can now be undeleted 

message: Being bold, I've tweaked the instructions gently to recommend using full word descriptions of problems instead of the two-letter abbreviations. The abbreviations are somewhat unobvious; I personally never noticed them before despite being a Wikipedian for several years, and didn't see the list when first scanning the page.
Many people can react negatively to a notification that something they've contributed is slated to be removed, particularly so if it's not clear what's wrong. Abbreviations and jargon can seem like a convenient shorthand, but it may be preferable to spend a few extra keystrokes to make the entry clear and precise. This may save you paragraphs of typing and hours of frustrating negative interaction with someone who's surprised and confused. --Brion 04:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecating abbreviations 

message: :I originally started a discussion of this at the admin noticeboard, but then made up my mind that this is probably the better place for it.
dbroadwell has blanked many subpages linked from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Log and then put a speedy tag on them. I don't quite see the point in deleting these pages, but don't know if this was discussed anywhere. Shouldn't we keep the history of the old deletion discussions available for non-admins (and undelete the pages that have been speedied)? If the pages are blanked, it is hard to search for old discussions via Whatlinkshere, so there is no big difference between blanking and deleting the pages other than for doing research on somebody's contributions during a request for adminship. That alone might be a good reason to keep the pages if there are no reasons to delete them. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted stuff may not remain viewable to admins forever. The pages should not be deleted.Geni 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And should they be blanked? Kusma (討論) 01:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. We have had problems caused in the past by search engins picking up our deletion debates.Geni 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Righto. I'll keep to the strikeout pattern that I started then. (this is dbroadwell) Should I start the undelete process for my speedies as well as the ones that are long deleted? -- ∞Wirelain 01:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xoloz promised on his talk page to undelete them once we know what we want. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting should not be used for storage and we should be as transparent as posible which includes not deleting records. Thus they need to be undeleted.Geni 02:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll generate a list of my 50 and the previous set 193 that made me think it was the process, for Xoloz to have at. -- ∞Wirelain 02:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! -- ∞Wirelain 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of old IfD logs 

message: I uploaded this image that I myself took and added in KKH article. It has been proposed for deletion? I don't understand a specific reason? Can somebody explain? Thanks! User:Mahak_library 00:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some concern that you aren't the photographer.  Perhaps you could make that clearer?  Jkelly 00:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now declared myself as photographer in the image summary. User:Mahak_library 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversation, such as it exists, is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 June 21.  You may want to ask the nominator if their concerns have been resolved.  They may then remove the nomination.  Jkelly 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:KKH_earlyMorning.jpg]] 

message: This is my (long) edit summary for my edit: Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to list it first, and then inform the uploader? If the s/he was online when the notice was posted on his/her talk, then they would go to WP:IFD, only to find that they couldn't reply to a nomination that didn't exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of steps changed 

message: This image :Image:Popebenedettoencyclical.jpg is from yahoo news.  According to WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, a photo from a press agency is NOT a valid example of fair use.  Can this be speedied as I7 or does it need to come to IFD? BigDT 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for WP:IFD -- it isn't a WP:CSD.  Jkelly 19:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I have listed it for deletion. BigDT 19:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about fair use image 

message: I've uploaded a number of images over the last few months, which I am now going to crop (so they look better) and upload again.  Since they are not quite duplicates, is it OK to request apeedy deletion of the originals?  They are licensed for creative commons and GFDL, but as of yet are not in CC.  --Joelmills 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest we just hold onto the originals. Cropping removes potentially useful information that might find reuse down the road - for example, if someone else thinks they can crop it better. If you want you can just upload over the originals, since old versions of images are retained. They can't be speedy deleted in any case, they'd have to go through IfD. Deco 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete original after cropping? 

message: Why not use a preload on Template:Ifd2 when you click notify, so it automatically puts "" in the edit box. --GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preload on Ifd2 template 

message: À la Template:Oldafdfull, I created this to place on talk pages of images that are not deleted through the IFD process. Please use to your heart's content. howcheng  {chat} 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Oldifdfull]] 

message: All members are invited provide comments on a proposal that may modify the current IfD process. The proposal is posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed modification to IfD process. 

message: Per User talk:Cryptic, it seems the bot is out of order. Cryptic thinks the machine lost power but as he is out of town, won't be able to get to it until he gets back on Tuesday the 11th. howcheng  {chat} 06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crypticbot 

message: So  should be used for fair use images lacking a rationale uploaded after May 4 2006, but what about images lacking fair use rationales uploaded before this date? Chaos syndrome 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be nominated for deletion in the usual manner. And why do we have both  and ? One of them should redirect to the other. howcheng  {chat} 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationales 

message: I've spent the last two hours trying to get up on the instructions about Fair Use and image deletion, and I can't decipher any of it.  
*A lot of the images I'm seeing have some sort of Fair Use description typed in by the uploader, but they don't seem to be valid.  Seems that an uploader can type in anything:  how do I know it's legit? What do I do with those kinds of images?
*What do I do when I encounter images uploaded from another website, when those websites give no permission to use their photos?  The source is given, but there is no permission, yet the uploader claims Fair Use.
*What about images uploaded from news services (like the BBC), where the claim is that the image is fair use because it is an historic event, even though the BBC specifically says their photos are copyrighted?
*I can't figure out when to speedy or not, since most of the Fair Use justifications I'm seeing don't seem legit.
I'm trying to help out on featured article candidates, but I just don't know where to even start on any of these images, and am hoping someone will lead me through it.  I've read everything I can find, but besides Wiki instruction creep, I guess you have to be a lawyer to figure out if someone can upload images fairly.  If anyone can help me learn this area, I'd appreciate it.  Sandy 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A key point that you seem to be unclear on is that fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement in the United States.  Every image that we claim Wikipedia:Fair use on is an image that is not licensed for our use.  We wouldn't have to claim "fair use" if we knew that it was freely licensed!  If you find an image that does not seem to meet the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:IFD, or tag it with , or bring it to Wikipedia:Fair use review.  Images that have  and no rationale can be tagged with  to have them deleted in a week.  Jkelly 04:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming to the rescue :-)  I have a vague understanding of Fair Use as it relates to quoting text on a website, so my problem is that most of what I see as Fair Use rationale on these images seems to be concocted and bogus.  They *do* have a ratoinale most of the time, but often it just seems to be something the uploader made up (??).  Is it ever legit to claim Fair Use on a BBC or AP photo, for example?  I suspect that if I tag them as having no rationale, the uploader may just concoct a rationale, so it sounds like I'm better to go to Fair use review?  That is one place I hadn't found ... thanks for helping me out.  Sandy 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is confusing too.  A section of WP:FAIR specifically disallows AP news photos, but we also have Kim Phuc, Budd Dwyer, and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, all of which use AP photos, and which we acquired permission to use. Hbdragon88 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I give up

message: if an author of an image uploads it and releases it to public domain i.e. :Image:Gil001.png and it becomes orphaned, do we still put it up for deletion, or leave it?--Crossmr 07:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was regularly closing IFDs, I would move any image that was remotely encyclopedic to Wikimedia Commons.  Even if we don't need it locally, other projects might be able to use it.  Jkelly 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  orphans and public domain 

message: I have modified  to include a link to the uploader's contributions.  I think it's worth trying out to see how well it works.  I know that when I nominate an image here, I typically check the uploader's other image uploads to see if there are problems anywhere else. Having this link saves a click or two and lets anyone interested in working on image issues quickly check contributions. BigDT 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ifd2 template 

message: I've created a Javascript helper file to make IFD nominating and image tagging less tedious. See User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js for documentation. howcheng  {chat} 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js]] 

message: From what I can see of the page history, July 31st seems to have dropped into limbo in the last day++ - looks like another link to July 29th was created in the "old discussion" section instead. Is this intentional or a mistake? Chaos syndrome 10:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like July 31 has been processed.  If there is a missing day in the old discussions, it's probably not intentional.  Can you provide a link to exactly where the problem is? BigDT 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 31st? 

message: It might be nice if you wonderful folks would leave a note of the AfD page that there is a different process for the deletion of Image pages. Just an idea as I just wandered through the AfD process requesting one of my images be deleted without any clue that there is a seperate process and proceedure for images and media. Weaponofmassinstruction 23:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are the uploader, you can request speedy deletion (WP:CSD G7). Has the issue been settled?  Jkelly 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already says it. See WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. howcheng  {chat} 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article versus Image for deletion 

message: Anyone else find it annoying to scroll through the list of every image nominated when you want to just comment on one? I think every image should have its own section. --Liface 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always use ctrl-F to find it. howcheng  {chat} 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but you can't do that in search boxes. --Liface 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm so lazy 

message: Would someone else like to take a look at Hezbollah rocket force and make sure that I'm not alone in this?  I don't want to make it seem that I am engaged in a personal war against these images.  These images are TV screenshots of weaponry being used as "fair use".  If they were from American TV, we wouldn't even question that they are not fair use.  The fact that they are from middle eastern TV shouldn't change anything.  Does anyone know any reason I shouldn't nominate these images for deletion?  I'd rather try and avoid some of the emotional debates we've had over Israel issues here and on AFD. BigDT 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they are not fair use. There is no commentary in the article on media coverage which would justify the inclusion of televised material. The same goes for the Herald Sun image. The Iranian image is technically in the public domain in the US, but Jimbo said we shouldn’t use that as a rationale, and it does not qualify otherwise, either. As for the IDF image, having read the legalese, I do not think that the uploader’s interpretation that something in the page constitutes any permission to use the image in this manner is correct. The map seems to be OK, though. Disclaimer: IANAL. YMMV. Solidarity with the Middle Eastern conflicts! Wars of all countries, unite! End of disclaimer. —xyzzyn 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hezbollah rocket force]] 

message: I noticed that it says that images marked as fair use, but without a fair use rational, have to be tagged for a week before being deleted, but WP:FUC says 48 hours. Should this page be changed to reflect that? -- Ned Scott 08:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The seven days comes from CSD I6. It does seem that there is a discrepancy. —Bkell (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 days for no fair use rational? 

message: Consider :Image:Pharos of Alexandria1.jpg.  It is orphaned and a duplicate of :commons:Image:Pharos of Alexandria.jpg.  Unfortunately, :en:Image:Pharos of Alexandria.jpg is blocking the commons image that name.  Is there any way that this image can be moved to unblock the commons image, which would then allow it to be used? BigDT 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general,  means that it exists also on Commons with the same name. However, in this case, this should be marked as having no source and likewise with the Commons version, since that one cites en-wiki as the source. howcheng  {chat} 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I have tagged both :en:Image:Pharos of Alexandria1.jpg and :commons:Image:Pharos of Alexandria.jpg as .  Thanks.  BigDT 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you move an image? 

message: I once found this image on Wikipedia EN or on Commons.  Is there anyway I can find out if the image was deleted and if so why? -- Wikitravel Sapphire 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, there is no file history either here or at Commons for that filename.  Anyone can check deletion logs at Special:Logs.  Jkelly 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not in either deletion log.  Wikitravel Sapphire, are you sure that you are spelling it correctly? (Capitalization counts.) BigDT 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Varssavi warsaw eu.jpg]]

message: It seems that a great deal of the covers at :Category:Fair_use_TIME_magazine_covers are being used in manners not consistent with fair use. I've listed one already (:Image:Time-magazine-cover-hirohito-1928.jpg), and there are many others that should probably be listed as well (such as :Image:Keppel_Time.jpg). It might be best to just go through them all and list them en masse in one big batch. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of Fair Use 

message: I'm confused by the purpose of this page.  Over and over, I see images being nominated for deletion, but then even if multiple people vote Keep on the image, with no opposition other than the original nomination, most of the images just seem to get deleted anyway.  Is there any kind of oversight going on here? --Elonka 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a couple of examples ? They might have been picked up by a bot depending on the tag. Megapixie 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, scan down Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_August_25.  Based on what I was seeing, there didn't seem to be any connection between discussion about an image, and whether or not it had been deleted. --Elonka 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike other deletion pages, on IFD policy is a little more black and white than elsewhere, especially with regards to fair use images. There are also a lot fewer admins handling image deletions (I do the majority of the deletions, from what I can tell) so putting in deletion rationale for every image is really burdensome. In regards to your image that was deleted (:Image:MichaelBaigent.jpeg), that was a textbook case of WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. Hordes of people can come by and vote "keep" on any image, but if it runs afoul of WP:FUC no amount of consensus is going to stop it from being deleted. Every image nominated this day was deleted; any blue links you still see are because there is an image of the same name on Commons. howcheng  {chat} 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your work is appreciated, and if an image is genuinely inappropriate, I agree that it should be deleted.  However, the way that this page is structured seems counter-intuitive.  It seems like images are nominated for deletion, and then just as with article AfD discussions, there's then an opportunity for a "discussion"; however the way things are currently structured, it doesn't seem to really matter what's said, if someone (such as yourself) decides that those involved in the discussion are incorrect.  If this is the only way to handle things, I'd say, why even bother going through the nomination process, just skip the step and delete the images outright, and then deal with it if someone complains.  Otherwise, please take the time to actually engage in discussion and explain your rationale, if someone has bothered to question a deletion, rather than (seemingly) ignoring their commentary and acting unilaterally.  I think it'll have greater longterm benefits if you take the time to explain, in those cases where the image's deletion has been questioned.  It looks like there are only a few images out of any hundred that actually get participation, so it shouldn't take too much of your time to actually explain. Or in other words, imagine what a mess that the article AfD process would be, if editors engaged in a good faith keep/delete discussion, only to have some admin swoop in and silently decide that they were just going to delete the article, without closing the discussion or even participating in it. --Elonka 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is noted. I will be sure to note my deletion rationale when I delete images that some users want to keep. howcheng  {chat} 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments being ignored

message: The article says: "If an image is a candidate for speedy deletion, please do not list it here." Where exactly SHOULD we list it? I've done some searching, and can find nothing. -Patstuart 04:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's tagged as speedy delete, the image will be placed in a category that is actively monitored by admins. It doesn't need to be listed anywhere. The admins will review the image and the speedy delete criteria and either delete the image or remove the speedy delete tag and possibly list it here (if it doesn't meet the speedy delete criteria). Megapixie 20:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... please do not list here 

message: Usability of this page is awful. To add a comment to individual image is next to impossible due to huge size of page (not the Mozilla problem, editing section).
This superpage should be split by days and every image should be editable section of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already split by day. But making each image it's own section would severely clutter up the TOC. It might be possible to disable the automatic TOC and have a bot automatcaly update a "manual" TOC every time a new day is added or removed, but it's a bit more hassle. --Sherool (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to consider too that the vast majority of deletion nominations here get absolutely no comment. To make a separate subpage for each one then would be seriously overkill. howcheng  {chat} 03:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, pluss it would run afoul of the hard limit of the number of transclutions on one page (WP:CP had some trouble with that). But if we could find a way to avoid having the TOC become a mess using a level 5 header isntead of bold text on the image title would eneable section editing on each image and still not look much different that it does now, except a bunch of edit links along the right hand side (and the TOC problem), see examples below: --Sherool (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Uploaded by so and so (notify | contribs) Looks aufull. --Sherool (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Uploaded by so and so (notify | contribs) whatever.  --Sherool (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we already have a bot that shuffle the per-day subpages around, maybe we can enhance it to also update a "static" transcluded TOC subpage once a day and use it instead of the automated one (__NOTOC__ (all it has to do is update a list of the "active" days whenever it removes or add one)... Just an idea anyway. --Sherool (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no bot any more. User:Crypticbot, which used to do it, went inactive when User:Cryptic left the project. howcheng  {chat} 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well it would not be too hard to do manualy either, but it would be one more page to update unless some clever template can be devised (dont' think you can check for transcluded pages though, just existing or non-existing ones)... --Sherool (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy it was pretty easy to make a template that display the TOC as it should be (not nessesarily like the page is, but we usualy keep it up to date right?), see example below the dates will update automaticaly (todays's date and 5 days back automaticaly), though any layout changes on the page itself have to be updated manualy (doesn't happen too often though). Anyone opposed to updating the  template to use headers, put in this "TOC template" and give it a test run? --Sherool (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, it's implemented. Let's see how this goes. howcheng  {chat} 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usability of this page 

message: :Uploaded by so and so (notify | contribs) Looks aufull. --Sherool (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Example.jpg]] (talk | delete)

message: :Uploaded by so and so (notify | contribs) whatever.  --Sherool (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we already have a bot that shuffle the per-day subpages around, maybe we can enhance it to also update a "static" transcluded TOC subpage once a day and use it instead of the automated one (__NOTOC__ (all it has to do is update a list of the "active" days whenever it removes or add one)... Just an idea anyway. --Sherool (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no bot any more. User:Crypticbot, which used to do it, went inactive when User:Cryptic left the project. howcheng  {chat} 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well it would not be too hard to do manualy either, but it would be one more page to update unless some clever template can be devised (dont' think you can check for transcluded pages though, just existing or non-existing ones)... --Sherool (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy it was pretty easy to make a template that display the TOC as it should be (not nessesarily like the page is, but we usualy keep it up to date right?), see example below the dates will update automaticaly (todays's date and 5 days back automaticaly), though any layout changes on the page itself have to be updated manualy (doesn't happen too often though). Anyone opposed to updating the  template to use headers, put in this "TOC template" and give it a test run? --Sherool (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, it's implemented. Let's see how this goes. howcheng  {chat} 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Example.png]] (talk | delete)

message: Recently, Gay Cdn has been going around and removing all the redlinked entires - IFD entries whose images were deleted.  It this policy?  I konw that it's done for WP:DRV, but I was just curious if IFD had adopted a similar policy. Hbdragon88 05:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy I don't think there is a definitive answer to that... Different admins have different ways of closing IFD's some blank finished items, others (like me) prefeer to leave the listing intact with a note to the effect of "deleted" or "kept" under the image. Although if the image was speedy deleted outside the IFD process I see no real harm in unlisting them from IFD, but then again the uploader might come looking for the discussion in wich case I personaly prefeer to keep everyting listed. There is no definitive policy on it though (except removing the ifd tag and adding a note on the talk page of kept images and all that). --Sherool (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer to leave them in. See above for discussion of blanking the pages entirely, in which it was decided not to do so. howcheng  {chat} 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I read it it was descided not to outright delete the subpages, but there seems to be some support for blanking them to keep our deletion debates out of the search engines (not a big problem for IFD most of the time though we have our moments with the Lolicon stuff and what not). --Sherool (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, deleting and blanking roughly accomplish the same thing, although deletion makes them accessible only to admins. I will point out, however, that User:Dbroadwell stopped blanking them after the discussion. howcheng  {chat} 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking pages? 

message: I don't know very much about image policy and such, so I was hoping someone could answer my question here. These two images were uploaded by a vandal to insert into the Pussy article (and this is why). Should these images be listed for deletion? They seem to be attacks, and are probably not here with the subjects' consent. Is this a valid reason for deletion?Thanks for your patience, and apologies for my ignorance. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report  07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I thought that there was a speedy criteria on iamges used solely for attack, but I can't find it.  I can't think of them being used in an encyclopedic mannner, which is a valid reason to delete. Hbdragon88 07:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the various "attack" critereas have been merged into the "new" general critera #10, attack pages/images can be speedy deleted regardles of namespace. --Sherool (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the answers. I'll keep that in mind for the future. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report  09:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: I uploaded a picture to make a point on the Language article, but I actually never used it. Is the a speedy criterion for these cases or should the image be voted for deletion here? Thanks jοτομικρόν (talk, email) 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: will do the trick for you. howcheng  {chat} 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another quick question 

message: Is there a template that makes the navigation header? I just added it manually to a bunch of days' worth of logs. If there isn't one, I'll create it, I suppose. howcheng  {chat} 03:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I find ,  and such, but no ... --Sherool (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created (basically, just copied tfd log). This should do the trick. howcheng  {chat} 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think the date parameters are broken, past pages seems to change to today's date automaticaly. --Sherool (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one I added it to was October 13. Prior to that, I was just adding it manually. The template needs to be subst'ed because it just puts the dates in automatically like . It doesn't take any parameters like  does. I could change it to accept parameters and default to today's date if your intention is to put them on older pages. howcheng  {chat} 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn October 13 used to link to itself and the 15th when I checked it yesterday, but it seems ok now. So whatever that was guess it's not a problem. --Sherool (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation header 

message: Hey folks, what's our policy on images requiring "proper attribution"? I'm mostly wondering about :Image:AkeGreen.jpg, which is licensed "under a copyright law [sic] that states this article may be republished with proper attribution to journalist Michael Ireland". Is that free enough for Wikipedia's purposes? Thanks. -- 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says "You may republish this story with proper attribution", with nothing about the images. Also, "republish" doesn't imply to me that derivative works are allowed, so I'm going to say it's not allowed. Actually, in this case the image is credited to "Pressens bild" so they don't even own the copyright to it in the first place. howcheng  {chat} 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images requiring "proper attribution" 

message: On the Kim Mitchell page, there was an image (as recently as Oct 20), which has since been deleted. The image was called :Image:KMcolourBioshot2003.jpg, but I cannot find any record of its deletion on this page or any of the "Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006_October_nn" pages. How can I find out why it was deleted? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Log is your friend: . howcheng  {chat} 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it - thanks! --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing image - where did it go? 

message: For the first time I discovered a picture uploaded that could be considered (in some civil jurisdictions) as child pornography.  In no sense was it "medical" or "informational" (and I don't think there could be much valid rationale for the inclusion for either of those).  
Is it posible to create a special category for the reporting of this, and for the immediate deletion of anything that could possibly fall in this category?
Thanks to all for keeping Wikipedia free from this plague.
SkierRMH,01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Potentially it could fall under the scope of , depending on the image. howcheng  {chat} 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just another prudish Porn complaint

message: This doesn't seem precisely right, somehow; the image is formerly a Wikipedia logo, which means it's probably a GFDL image saved somewhere, maybe on Commons? But the user who uploaded this copy tagged it fair use, and now a bot has gotten ahold of it. Please advise if you know a) where this is saved elsewhere or b) can be retagged correctly and legitimately to prevent deletion. -- nae'blis 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image appears to be a bit for bit copy of :Image:Wikipedia-2nd-logo.png and thus can be deleted. BigDT 14:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellently spotted, thank you! I'll update that image's page for credit purposes and retag the other. -- nae'blis 19:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Wikipedia cunctator logo.png]] tagged for speedy deletion 

message: Disclaimer: I know very little about image licensing, legal issues, and such. I came across a few images uploaded by User:Fotografix.ca. The images (1, 2, 3, 4, & 5) all have the text ©FotoGrafix watermarked on them. The user never claims to the photographer or the owner of the rights to fotografix.ca. (Info: the name of the author of the article, Jonathan van Bilsen, is closely associated with the website on a Google search.) They [the user] use the  template on the images that asserts that "[They], the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." If they are the creator, however, and these works are elsewhere released with all rights reserved, isn't it against policy to include them on Wikipedia, because then only Wikipedia can use them? (Note that these images are all uploaded 2006-11-07, well after any deletion deadlines I have hitherto seen.) Unfortunately, I cannot check whether all rights are actually reserved; the link to "Terms and Condiditions" at the bottom of the fotografix.ca page is actually not a link. Anyways, I guess I'm trying to decide whether or not these are copyright violations, or whether or not they should be listed here, or something. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch ... the user has no contributions other than uploading this image and creating their user page, which seems to be a personal essay unrelated to Wikipedia.  I will nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD. BigDT 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good-faith uploader 

message: I have changed the section breaks on  from ===== to .  This will eliminate the funky edit summaries - by default, there won't be any image summary so you'll need to add one, but that's better than an unreadable thing.  04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming there is no major objection to the above change, I am going to also remove the instered comment about cutting down the edit summary.  This is now unnesesary as it defaults to no edit summary.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh ... I didn't notice that. ;) --BigDT 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted back to the ===== breaks.  Oddly, the  breaks caused the [edit] links not to work from the main Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion page.  They worked from the individual daily pages, but not from the main page.  We need to find another way around this ... because I don't think either way is acceptable.  Edit links need to work on the main page and we need to have meaningful edit summaries. BigDT 00:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced all of the  tags on the 12/9 subpage with =====.  That allows the edit buttons to work for those entries.  I don't know that it is a great solution, though, because the <noinclude> tag appears as a part of the previous nomination and that could look confusing.  I've left the template in its reverted state. BigDT 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes.  The current huge edit summary sure is a pain. :) Why not have the image-delete button in the section and not in the section header? ---J.S  (T/C) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ifd2}} section breaks 

message: I propose removing the "Uploader=" field from the template used to display IFDs on the current day's page. The only way to enter this field is to type or copy & paste the name which is tedious. The value obtained by this field could just as easily be found on the image description page, which is already automatically listed. Therefore it seems slightly redundant (but done for the sake of convenience). Due to the widespread thought that IFDs are more cumbersome than other xFDs, this should be eliminated. --MECU≈talk 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has commented, I guess this won't go anywhere. But it doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks IFDs are rather difficult to do should look at installing this: Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion#User:Howcheng.2Fquickimgdelete.js (it's the same from above). --MECU≈talk 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, anyone who uses that script should keep a watch on User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, because I announce version updates and stuff on the talk page. howcheng  {chat} 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A step to make doing IFDs easier 

message: I've proposed a new image CSD at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#proposal_for_images_in_deleted_articles. It could use some thoughts from IFD regulars. Thanks.--Kchase T 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new image speedy deletion criterion proposed 

message: (UNN = User Not Notified) I have been nominating images for IFD and not notifying users, which User:Gay Cdn has specifically talk to me about and said it is consensus to notify the users. However, I think in some instances that notifying the user is a moot point, as they will likely never see the message, let alone see it in the next 5 days that matter. I have been claiming WP:IAR because I don't think following this rule makes it as easy to maintain Wikipedia. I specifically do not notify selected users who have few (ie, 1, less than 10) contribution(s), and/or who haven't made an edit in months or years. However, if a user has made many edits with gaps in between, I will still notify. I therefore believe that the user notification should be required for all users that the IFD nominator deems likely to seen or be worth Wikipedia's time in notifying, per the guidelines I said above. No one should be nominating IFDs and never notifying users; the thought should be first to notify and then determination made that it's not worth the while because of few edits or a long time, months, since the last one. --MECU≈talk 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNN 

message: I came across the following special page, unused files -  as of right now there are 96649 orphaned images, they go back to 2003.  Many of the recent ones are orphaned fair use as well.  Just amazing.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 03:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Does anyone know how many total images are on Wikipedia? --MECU≈talk 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: 104,428 orphaned images as of MECU≈talk 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently over 96600 un-used images 

message: How do I find the relevant discussion page for a particular image that has been nominated for deletion? --217.205.242.172 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To find the image discussion, there are several ways.  If the nomination was in the last 5 days, do a search on the main IfD page for the file name (Ctrl+f on windows) or you need to know the date the image was nominated if it was more then 5 days ago.  You can get the date from the history page of the image.  On the main IfD page, click down to the older discusions section.  If the page for the particluar date is still listed you can click on that date and do a search for the file name.  If the file name is in red there, the image has been deleted and further discussion here is pointless - take it to deletion review WP:RFU.  If the date is gone, you can check the archive for the discussion, but the image is definately gone.  Hope that makes sense.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Do I? 

message: While looking through some of my old deletion nominations, I noticed that  has tagged a number of her image uploads with  saying, "I took this picture and I do not want Wikipedia to use it because I really hate Wikipedia."  The images were never actually placed on WP:IFD so the deletion process never went forward.  The user has uploaded a large number of images  and most are being used.  Can I assume that we are all in agreement that you can't revoke your permission?  In other words, once you upload an image and tag it with GFDL-self or PD-self, you cannot go back on that?  Assuming we all agree there, what should be done with these images?  Should they simply be reverted?  As a courtesy, should we run any of her unused images through IFD? (I don't think we should get rid of content that is in use ... WP:OWN and all that ... but anything that is unused would be subject to deletion anyway.) --BigDT 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct -- free licenses cannot be revoked. We have no responsibility to remove the images from Wikipedia, especially if they're in use (this has happened before, although I don't remember the user who did it the last time). The unused images could be put through IFD or G7'ed, but I would still suggest moving them to Commons if they seem useful. howcheng  {chat} 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User mass-tagging own images for deletion 

message: What does it mean by OR, AB and UE? --Deryck C. 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the very bottom of WP:IFD under "Glossary".  OR means "orphaned".  (Elsewhere on Wikipedia, it means "original research", but on IFD, it usually means "orphaned".)  "AB" means "absentee uploader" - the person who uploaded the image is no longer an active editor and so if there is any doubt whether the image should be deleted, someone else may want to examine it for a potential encyclopedic use.  "UE" means "unencyclopedic".  That can cover all manner of things.  It could refer to a picture of a user that they uploaded to use on their user page, but later removed it.  (Wikipedia is not free webhosting, so if an image that does not contribute to the encyclopedia isn't being used, we delete it.)  It could also refer to some kind of childish creation or nonsense.  I hope that helps. --BigDT 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: How come on other XfD pages, after I make an edit to vote/comment, I am brought back to the section I was looking at, but at Images and media, I'm only brought back to the top of the page, which gets tedious after a while? I use Firefox 2 on WinXP. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 14:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because it doesn't load the whole page at once? I've noticed this on WP:ANI when the thread I want is at the bottom, so I try to scroll down only to find it hasn't actually downloaded that bit yet. It's also important to note that most other XfD processes have subpages rather than the one page that IfD has. I wonder is that the answer? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one sounds quite plausible. I wonder if it should be changed. Xiner (talk, email) 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it's worth it. AfD tends to get a lot more debate, IfD (although theoretically allowing for debate) tends to just be a list of images for admins to delete. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. This probably means I should only vote on nominations that are or may be disputed? Xiner (talk, email) 15:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the reason is because the MediaWiki software doesn't do the anchors correctly when links are included in the heading -- this happens on any page, not just IFD. To try this out, go to a long page (maybe your user pgae or user talk page) and at the bottom, create a new heading, ==Main Page==, and some text. Save it, then edit that section and save it again. You'll notice that it won't scroll to the right location. Now do it again, but don't link the words "Main Page" and this time you'll get thrown to the right spot after saving. howcheng  {chat} 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After voting on this page... 

message: How do we handle images that have improper licenses? Is there a template that can be added to the image page or do we fix it or ifd it? The image in question is :Image:Apple-store backsoon-mwsf07.png. The image is obviously a screenshot of the Apple website. But the uploader marked it as  which is incorrect. I'm thinking of nominating it for IFD because it would need the fair use  template but it would also need fair use rationale which I don't feel like providing. So, what should I do?--NMajdan•talk 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate it for deletion. Notify the uploader. I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Xiner (talk, email) 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the procedure for most images I run into with proper licenses?--NMajdan•talk 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper licenses 

message: If someone wants to take out some of the backlogged old submissions, everything from the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 14th, except for nominations and discussions in which I am a party has been closed. --BigDT 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: For the second time in the last several weeks, an image has mysteriously disappeared from Wikipedia (in this case :Image:Bob Bergen.jpg), and I can find no discussion of it being nominated for deletion in the back archives.  Is there some way to search IfD? Robert K S 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 10/Images. The reason for the deletion of an image is usually found in its log. —xyzzyn 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To find a deletion discussion, click :Image:Bob Bergen.jpg, then "What links here". Conscious 11:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better way to search? 

message: Hello all,
The last few months I've seen a lot of images which have been deleted, but have not been removed from relevant pages. The result is a thorougly ugly Wiki! For example, take a look at History of Bulgaria; in the middle of the article several images are now redlinked. On a plethora of other articles, I've seen the same, but up until now have always thought the problem would solve itself. 
These redlinked images are, of course, silly. I dont know the procedures here (and I'm fine with not knowning), but I suggest that somebody who does takes a look to refine them. If people deem images delete-worthy, then people should perhaps also remove them from their respective pages.
Good luck!
Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images not deleted thoroughly 

message: Two things: Would having a template that would say something like "This image was nominated for deletion but was kept", with the name of "ifd-keep" be useful? It would be very small and along the lines of the AFD-keep and REFU-keep types. I realize that there are very few images that actually get kept from IFD, but this might be useful for the few images that survive.
Also, would the admins like a script add-on tool that they would put into their monobook.js (or other style) where again, for the few images that are kept, they would click a link next to the name or edit of the image that says "keep" and it would open a new browser tab with the image on it and remove the IFD tag (or maybe replace it with the above IFD-keep) and save the image. A little less redundant work for the hard-working IFD admin regulars I hope. It would probably be possible to add a "delete" capability as well, which might be even more useful. The "keep" might be prone to abuse (though someone that installs it to just click "keep" on all the images is a lot more work that just removing the IFD tag alone, but it's still possible) so there may need to be some kind of control for that, though it seems unlikely and if abused, reverting their work and warning them would probably be a better task, and editing the monobook to remove the script. 
Any thoughts on this, or does any other IFD regular have any idea to make things better at IFD? The new Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group is trying to help the processes where it can and this was one suggestion from the project (which consists of me and the BJBot owner, Bjweeks, but still it's from the project!). --MECU≈talk 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IFD-keep and "keep"/"delete" script tools? 

message: Re Image:Waitara 1.jpg and Image:Waitara 2.jpg: I received the requested permission for usage of these images on Wikipedia from the copyright owner and forwarded these to the address I was given ('permissions-enATwikimediaDOTorg' on Feb 1. I have now copied her letter to the image pages. If I have failed to do anything in order to keep these two images on the Waitara, New Zealand entry, please let me know before deleting these images. Thanks Grimhim 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waitara images

message: I would like any input you guys have to offer, I'm just going to copy the details from the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot 2.
The bot makes a list from :Category:Images and media for deletion, checks the page on the list to see if they have been listed on an IFD page for the last 20 days, if not list them on the that days IFD page. The bot's code is mostly done and I will be running tests posting to a user subpage rather than to IFD. If anybody thinks this bot should have it's own account (IFDBot?) or the current account (BJBot) should be renamed to something else (ImageBot?) please make a note of it.
A report is being generated here, User:BJBot/IFDReport this need to be cleared out before the bot can start running else it would flood IFD. BJTalk 05:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine for your bot to have more than one function, so long as its edit summaries clearly indicate what it's doing. —Remember the dot (t) 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BJBot/IFDBot

message: :Image:Livers.jpg.  This image has been deleted once then re-uploaded.  The PETA website copyright page says "Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely for personal, noncommercial use. Materials which are copyrighted, including, without limitation, text, videos, and photographs, may not be reproduced, retransmitted, or used for other than personal use without PETA's express written consent."
Obviously a lawyer didn't write their disclaimer.  PETA appears to be disclaiming copyright in the first section "Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely" and then they put limitations on use "for personal, noncommercial use." 
Wikipedia can't host "personal use" nor "noncommercial use".  So my reading is that PETA is not disclaiming copyright but freely giving "personal, noncommercial use" licenses. And - that would not apply to us.
Any other take on this policy question? SchmuckyTheCat 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has come up at least once before.  I had a conversation here about their images.  This PETA site  says, "PETA does not copyright anything. Please copy these recordings and send them to anyone you think should hear them (clergy, friends, etc.)."  When I found that and had it confirmed by this user's statement of what the head of PETA said, I was content to accept it as the case.  It may be worth actually contacting PETA to find out the answer to this question - I've noticed a handful of their images that we couldn't use as fair use but are purported to be free. --BigDT 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, they don't seem to quite understand how copyright works. They say "PETA does not copyright anything" as if copyrighting were a process that you have to actively go through. It used to be, in the U.S., but hasn't been since 1978, IIRC. Nowadays every creative work, including photographs, is automatically protected by copyright unless the creator explicitly releases all or some rights. I'd write them and ask for someone in their legal department (I assume they have one) to clarify whether the images are free for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial use and the creation of derivatives. Perhaps tell them about the Creative Commons Licenses and ask them to make an explicit statement on their web page releasing the images under some version. —Angr 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we get a statement they are freely licensing their images, the "noncommercial" part of their statement makes it restricted-use for which we should delete all PETA images on the spot. --MECU≈talk 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PETA images

message: Hi,
This log is organized in the reverse from other similar pages, such as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. It is more convenient to have the closest date near the top, and the furthest date at the bottom.
:To solve this, fix to:
== Recent nominations ==







Since I'm new to this particular page, I don't know the norm, nor am I going to change it. Someone who is, please consider this change.Consistency please!+mwtoews 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse order 

message: I just noticed this thread on WP:AN and the letter from the Foundation that it references .  I am linking it here as an FYI - presumably, it's going to give us more traffic. --BigDT 05:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wtih this in mind, I was wondering if someone could go kick ass and take some names down at List of Virtual Dungeon monsters.  There are at least 55+ images on that page, and I don't feel like nominating them all in one mega bunch. Hbdragon88 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing has actually changed yet. Doing anything based on that would be groundless. --MECU≈talk 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that statement is not a change in policy. The use of fair-use images on pages like List of Virtual Dungeon monsters has never complied with fair use policy; there's nothing new about it. —Angr 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: General note, that discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement.↔NMajdan•talk 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI, change in image policy 

message: Can someone here deal with :Image:Potassium alum.jpg? it is certainly not showing potassium alum! Also needs removing from that page. Carcharoth 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out that there used to an image of potassium alum at that name, but it got deleted for not having a license. I deleted the new image for being vandalism. The issue I guess is that nobody removed the original image from the article after it got deleted. howcheng  {chat} 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Carcharoth 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange image