Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 1

message: Moved from Images for deletion
*[Xul files are] displayed as text anyway, as the HTTP content-type is not sent correctly.  Moreover, the source is more interesting than the result, and is already available on Hello world program. - IMSoP 20:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xul files 

message: *:Image:Iaius1.jpg a sketch, not used anywhere and not suitable for an article. Maximus Rex 06:49, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SWF discussion, from Images for deletion

message: [moved from page- David Gerard 19:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Porn policy

message: An image that isn't there, and won't go away.
The image, :Image:Scuba-flag1.jpg, doesn't seem to display. But I can't delete it either. What gives?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 00:34, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
:There's a known bug in the software that causes this. Sometimes it can be fixed by uploading and immediately deleting a dummy image with the same name. Other times, you have to add it to WP:IFD#Broken images that can't be deleted and wait for a developer to get rid of it once and for all. In this case, I was able to get rid of it using the upload/delete trick. • Benc • 21:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: :Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images. • Benc • 13:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: This should be fixed now, please try deleting such images. --Brion 08:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[WP:VP]] 

message: The instructions on the page say "Using the delete tab only deletes the image description, not the actual image". But 
when I accidentally used the delete tab on top it seems the image was deleted? Thue | [[User 
talk:Thue|talk]] 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same experience. I can only assume either this page is outdated or the image is still stored in the 
database but can no longer be accessed through the image page. Deco 19:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How to delete images

message: We are currently losing history and information on some moves to Commons. Here is how one instance occurred:
* I created :Image:Separation axioms.gif some time ago.
* Fropuff improved it, in the process moving it to :Image:Separation axioms.png.
* I edited the description page to acknowledge Fropuff's contribution.
* After Commons began, but before it was well integrated with the rest of Wikimedia, I copied the image and its 
depcription to :commons:Image:Separation axioms.png.
* On Commons, Dbenbenn added a  copyright tag, which is OK as far as it goes.
* Here, Quadell added a  copyright tag, which is probably better (but doesn't seem to be used on Commons).
* The copy here was deleted, because it was duplicated on Commons.
Here is what was lost:
# The history of the drawing before it was moved to Commons.
# The edit history of the description before it was moved.
# Quadell's superior copyright tag, made after the move.
(1) and (2), as it happens, are not important in this case, so perhaps they were checked before the deletion; they could be important in other cases. (3) can be corrected on Commons, and I will do so; but I only know about the need to make the correction because I'm an administrator here.
I have not been active in the image deletion process; and for moving images to Commons, my only activity has been to copy my own images. So I'm not familiar with the procedures followed; but this example suggests a flaw to me. Pleasee don't take this as an attack on the deleters; in fact, in this case, it was Quadell who did the deletion that I'm criticising, even though I'm criticising it for losing information added by Quadell! But there probably need to be more redirects and fewer outright deletions. -- Toby Bartels 01:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
In this case, would it have worked for the image to be deleted, with the image description page turned into a redirect to the new name?  Do redirects even work in the Image: namespace?  Perhaps we should just be keeping all this stuff until "push history to commons" gets implemented?
: In this case, it would have worked to delete the image but not the page. However, determining that still requires a human judgement call. IIRC, the only prior version of the image was essentially identical, only of grainier quality; so a human deleter can tell that it's not needed. OTOH, is there any practical reason to delete even the image? (What's the difference between calling an image from Commons and calling the same image from the local wiki?) I don't know, but if there's no need to delete anything, then it's probably best to delete nothing at all until a smooth moving feature is implemented by the developers. -- Toby Bartels 11:14, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
By the way, Toby, if you think the image is ineligible for copyright, you should just tag it PD.  That way there's no issue, since you're the one who created it.  dbenbenn | talk 01:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually hadn't occurred to me, until Quadell pointed it out! ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 11:14, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
we need STOP DELETING IMAGES MOVED TO COMMONS until consensus is reached on the issues involved.
hdd space on the filesystem where images are stored is NOT an issue atm (over 200GB availible according to the admins/developers) so there is no urgency to delete such images.
also it would not be hugely difficult to write a script that hashed everything on the filesystem and replaced duplicates by hardlinks if space for images became tight.
if there is no image history to be saved then you could just delete the images and leave the description pages intact.
if there is image history then its probablly best to just leave the image totally intact here. 
Plugwash 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: This was moved to Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons. --MarkSweep 10:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing information in moves to Commons 

message: Twice in the last week, images have been renominated for deletion after they had survived the ifd process. These may 
be special cases, but I think in general this is bad form. (One can easily imagine an image that makes either the 
Palestinians or Israelis look bad being nominated for deletion over and over ad absurdum.) I'd like to see what other 
people think the standard should be. Should anyone be able to renominate an image for deletion just as soon as it 
survives the process? Should there be a waiting perios of a week, or a month, or a year? Does the number of votes 
matter? This isn't an official strawpoll; I'm just looking for opinions right now. For instance, here's mine. What's 
yours? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 
20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
* If an image passed the ifd process, and more than two people voted regarding it, then it should not be renominated 
for one month. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
* A month sounds like a reasonable requirement; however, I do feel that Autofellatio was a special case (the 
Jimbo-factor). — Davenbelle 20:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Agree with Quadell.  In fact, I'd say an image should be required to be an orphan before listing it here.  This page 
really isn't about voting, despite the title.  And images can't be undeleted.  So the decision about whether to use an 
image should be made elsewhere (like, at the page where it might be used).  Only once there's agreement not to use it 
should it even be listed here.  dbenbenn | talk 04:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renominating 

message: Project page notes to use wikipedia's internal search engine to search for where images are used, since  
The "What links here" tool is broken for images.  But the search function is currently disabled. Any suggestions? 
--Duk 13:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling for the image's name can help a lot (often pointing to a mirror, but at least you know where to look here), 
and making a trivial edit to the image's description page usually (but not always) will get what links here squared 
away. If you're really worried about it, you could always grab a local copy of the picture and its upload history for 
safekeeping in case somebody screams. --iMb~Mw 16:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas, thanks.  (Google didn't help on a couple of images I tried- which I knew were used).--Duk 
19:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching for image use- Broken