Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Sometimes when speedily deleting articles as vandalism/attack pages or spam I come accross images used exclusively on those articles. I tend to clean them up as I go along, but noticed today some of those are listed for deletion discussion. Any suggestions? Agathoclea 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator, but if an image qualifies for speedy deletion what I've seen happen is they go ahead and do it and then note it in the discussion. Nardman1 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems now, that IfDs get closed by deleting them. Consequently there is a backlog of IfDs to be closed where many of the images for a particular date have been deleted, but others have not and there is no indication why. I propose that we tag the undeleted IfD nominations as closed, thereby definitively establishing the status of the image as "keep". --Selket ^Talk 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any time I close an IFD as keep, I strike the image name, and add a bulleted Not deleted with an explanation as to why. Otherwise, there is no discernable difference between a keep and one that someone just hasn't gotten to yet. I think that practice is best for keeping it readable. That way, you can quickly scan a day's listing and see what hasn't been handled yet. --BigDT 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike other deletion debates, such as WP:AFD, IFDs are not currently utilizing archival tags when closing a debate. I think the use of archival tags should implemented here on IFD. I have created a tag that could be used: Template:Ifd top would be used at the top of a debate and Template:Afd bottom would be placed at the bottom. Looking for a few opinions before I add this to the project page. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators --24fan24 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

Unlike other deletion debates, such as WP:AFD, IFDs are not currently utilizing archival tags when closing a debate. I think the use of archival tags should implemented here on IFD. I have created a tag that could be used: Template:Ifd top would be used at the top of a debate and Template:Afd bottom would be placed at the bottom. I am looking for a few opinions about adding this to the closing instructions. --24fan24 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that useful. AFD is run as "I think this should be deleted. Does anyone agree?" IFD, on the other hand, is "I think this should be deleted. Does anyone object?" Since the vast majority of IFDs have no discussion other than the original nomination, archive tags would just be pointless paperwork. --Carnildo 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. This got me thinking though, perhaps we should develop a prod process for uncontroversial deletes and keep the ifds for more controversial deletions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24fan24 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

A prod process would also be easier for the nominating users. A prod tag is far simpler than adding a tag and going to another page to list a reason. --24fan24 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll coin the phrase: "iprod". I think this is a great idea. Then the archiving of IFDs that actually have discussion should occur with the templates listed above. --MECU≈talk 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise interesting points, but I don't think that either archival or proposed deletion would be useful. I get the indication that fewer people include images they have uploaded or otherwise have interest in their watchlists, so they might not see when an image has been prodded. If you find the ifd process laborious, then install User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to your monobook. Administrators will have to go through every single image anyways, so I argue that it would be better to include the arguments for and against deletion on a single page. I don't think that ifd is broken, so I don't think it needs to be fixed. --Iamunknown 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents: if users aren't watching an image they won't notice an ifd any more than they would a prod. I agree that ifd is not broken but that doesn't mean it cannot be improved. --24fan24 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

--24fan24 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should force the uploader of an image to have it on their watchlist? Then we only need to tell people to check their watchlist and expect people to check in at least once a week forever... But forcing watchlisting of uploaded images I still think is a better first step. MECU≈talk 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to recommending users watch their uploads, but I think forcing them to goes a little too far. This also would not be enforceable, as you cannot view another's watchlist. --24fan24 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We can always leave a message on their talk page, that is pretty easy. - cohesion 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 24fan24 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP (1,2,3,4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created (1,2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, wouldn't we have every image from the Commons categorised by their WP pages on WP, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, Tewfik^Talk 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

far less? en's image database is a little over 50% of the size of commons. there is still over 700K images.Geni 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant in this specific case, there are a minimal and fairly static number of images to which these new categories would apply, so that a small number of images had many more layers of categories than would otherwise be warranted (especially since there were often redundant categories added). Tewfik^Talk 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image description pages for images on commons are WP:CSD I2. I think a category for the same purpose would also be a speedy delete. Whatever category the "commons category" is placed in should/could have a link to the commons category/media. A category on commons isn't a problem, if it's populated. MECU≈talk 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik is incorrect. This topic is discussed further here:

• Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation. --Timeshifter 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to follow the entire process thing around here, so please list Image:AleMoon.jpg here. It is listed as GFDL-self, but is highly unlikely so.

On a side note, would it be possible to streamline/cut out most of the deletion process? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... I listed it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Thanks. --Ali'i 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any views about changing this process to be more decentralized, with date-based categorizations and the discussion occurring at the talk page? I'm thinking it could be very similar to the way we handle replaceable fair use now. The discussion could be closed on the talk page like they are for that system when there is a dispute. It seems like a lot less might slip through the cracks with a system like that. - cohesion 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the same thing above at Use of archival tags after keep/delete decision. I am certainly in support of this plan. --24fan24 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so how about a system like this: some tag technically like prod for images that gets placed on the image description page. Another template for notifying the uploader. Any disputes regarding the deletion will be on the image talk page. If there is a dispute regarding the image that discussion will be archived using the templates above. Most of the time there will probably be no discussion, so the talk page won't be created. The reasons for the deletion will be parameters in the prod-like template. If that seems ok, I can make the required templates soon. I would rather this take the place of {{ifd}}, (instead of something like {{imageprod}}) so people don't think that the same policy applies to this as prod (remove it if you're contesting the deletion) since this will be replacing the ifd system. It looks like most of this has support above, but as a total package does this seem ok? - cohesion 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds good but I think it would be better if objections were brought here to ifd. No other deletion process has debates on talk pages. It would be useful to have the discussion here as upposed to the talk page for two reasons: image talk pages are not very viable and not likely to attract a discussion and also if the image is deleted the discussion is lost as well. --24fan24 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use has the debates on the talk pages, then if the images get deleted the talk page remains, we could categorize these too so people could find them later (the idf top template could do this). - cohesion 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through Special:Unusedimages and there are over 100,000 unused images. Shouldn't they (or at least a good chuck of them) be deleted? -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)}

The freely licensed ones should probably be transwikied to commons. Any fair use should be deleted. --24fan24 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Would establishing some sort of "task force" be appropriate for getting this done? Or, more efficiently, a bot? -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BJBot is a bot that tags orphaned fair use images. Although it doesn't look like its tagged an image for that reason since late February.↔NMajdan•talk 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I really like the concept of a taskforce type thing to address these. I regularly am going through this list and doing exactly what is mentioned, tagging some for transwiking or nominating for deletion. I would not recommend having a bot go through these and moving the images to commons if they are "free" as many are incorrectly licensed. Also there are lots of unencyclopedic images which really don't need to be moved to commons such as picture of someone's daugther, a non-notable band, multiple duplicate images. If such a taskforce is put together I would be very interested in participating. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested as well. I've been tracking the number of orphans for awhile at User:Mecu/OrphanImages. I agree with moving to Commons if possible, but it must be done manually. User:Bjweeks, the author of User:BJBot doesn't seem to be around anymore. At the least, we should try and get the code from him to run the bot. The big drop on the chart is due to BJBot marking ~20,000 orphaned fair use images and then getting deleted by admins. The two smaller drops were additional runs after the first one since the first one used a ~3 month old database dump and then he used new ones. The problem just seems to be continuing and we just seem to collect ~305 new orphans/day. (~19k over the past two months) But with such large numbers involved, if people could do 10 images a day (which User:Wizardman will attest is boring and tedious, so 10 a day is plenty), that's 20 users doing 10 a day for 500 days - 1.36 YEARS! That still doesn't account for the 305 new orphans/day either - that's just to take care of the current backlog. There's a fundamental problem and even 40 users doing 50 images/day will still take 50 days. (These calculations assume 100,000 images, which we are currently over, but a BJBot run may knock out ~10k (probably a high guess, 1000 is more likely) to get the number down to 100k.) Not to mention the training, accuracy and other problems? Moving an image to Commons is great, but if we're not even using it here...? And it takes about 2-5 minutes to move to Commons for each image, that's 20-250 minutes a day (4 hours). I think we need a more automated system for moving to Commons to help with that task. This would help in the long run as well I envision that an image gets marked as "requested move to Commons", a second user comes and agrees that the image is free and is useful on Commons and marks the image as "approved to move to Commons" and then a nightly/weekly bot run will perform all the approved moves. The image tagging would take ~ 2 minutes, but the boring and redundant actual move to Commons work is eliminated, just the research that the image is free and has a good source, etc. Sorry for this being so long, but I've been passionate about this problem for awhile (hence my tracking and I was the idea behind BJBot to help reduce the numbers) but never got feedback from others that seemed to care, so I'm excited to see this finally. There is already Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group (which I founded with Bjweeks but we haven't done anything with it) where this project could fall under for coordination. There are a few other ideas I had for bots that Bjweeks never got around to, some listed on that project page. MECU≈talk 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the most common problems I find with images is the misuse of licensing tags, especially "selfmade" when the image clearly isn't. I can't find any template for that, and the instructuions here don't seem to acknowledge such problems. It seems that I have either to add a "license mkissing" template (which isn't strictly true), or just put it up for deletion. Am I missing something? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also {{PUIdisputed}} which is an in-between method, but generally accomplishes the same thing as IFD. No license would generally be wrong. MECU≈talk 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I use the no license tag fairly liberally when the license is clearly wrong, or the person isn't using templates correctly. The instructions they get with that {{image copyright}} and from orphanbot are usually helpful in those situations. That process is much more streamlined than IFD, and certainly more than PUIdisputed (which I think is more wishful thinking than anything). I don't believe either of those systems scale acceptably, and even now only handle a small percentage of the images that should really apply. I do use IFD as a last resort in some cases when they are licensed correctly. - cohesion 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. What would you do with Image:PussycatDolls.jpg? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There are over 300 images right now from http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/. (See [1], Template:Copyrighted-navyphotos.)

The owner of this website says [2] that the images came from a variety of sources - for example, some were given to him and some were found at a garbage dump.

Despite the best intentions of both the owner of the website and the uploader(s) of these images, they are in essence unsourced and lacking a license. Several discussions have been held about these images in the past - here, here, here, and here. But nothing was ever done.

It is now almost two years since Jimbo's mandate to get rid of such things, so I think something ought to be done. There are several options:

1. Redirect the template to {{db-g12}} - sit back and watch the fireworks.
2. Retag all of them as {{historicphoto}}. I don't really like this option because it only discourages attempts to find free images from governments, old PD news clippings, etc. Also, this option fails to resolve the problem that we don't know the actual copyright holder and so the images fail WP:FAIR#Policy #10.
3. Have a mass IFD on a separate subpage. Let it go on for two weeks or so so that there is an opportunity for any images that can be properly sourced to be saved.

Any thoughts? --BigDT 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote #1 or #3. #2 is impossible since the sources are unknown. #3 is probably politically a little better than #1. :) howcheng {chat} 19:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of WP:SHIPS and as much as I'd like to keep these images I understand the impossibility of it. An additional problem that I saw looking through those images is that some people put the template on images that aren't from navalphotos.co.ok. I would say option #3 as well. TomTheHand 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3 is probably a better option if we do it in tranches of say 50 images at a time (i.e. 50 images every 7 days or so). It gives everyone a fair chance to look at all the images, 300 at once is just too many to look at - even in two weeks. Probably best to bring this up at WP:SHIPS before this begins though. I think this is going to cause fireworks whatever happens. Megapixie 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted about this at WP:SHIPS. I think Megapixie's idea of nominating these files for deletion in groups of 50 or so is a good one and won't overwhelm people. I would say wait a few more days and then nominate the first group. TomTheHand 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, could you please provide sources for the "mandate" you mentioned? --Aarktica 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that BigDT is referring to Jimbo's post to WikiEN-l located here. --Iamunknown 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --Aarktica 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why #3? #3 suggests that we have an option to keep, which is disingenuous. These images should be deleted if we cannot figure out who the copyright holder is, where the photograph was taken, and country the photographer was born in. If by #3 you mean list them all on a subpage so people can do research, which generally seems to not be the case surrounding IfDs, then sure. --Iamunknown 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a list of al the currently tagged images here, if anyone wants to start annotating them. I'm going to go through now and label all the "certainly not public domain" ones - mainly photos that have to have been taken in recent years. Shimgray | talk | 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

...and it's looking like most of the older ones are "if we can show this was actually published before 1937, we're fine". Ways to determine that are appreciated. A couple have postcard labels, which I'd take as evidence - there was never really a market for postcards of ships scrapped twenty years earlier. Any thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done most of them (I had them all done, but then Firefox closed the wrong tab, and I lost the will to continue this evening...). Anything listed in the "Definitely taken after 1957" category is not going to be out of copyright for an anonymous author or lapsed Crown Copyright, so those ones can be deleted without any worry. The rest are potentially saveable with research. Shimgray | talk | 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The one thing that kinda bothers me is even for the ones that were unquestionably taken pre-1937, none of us can say for certain what the source is. I guess that's ok from a copyright standpoint ... as long as we are assuming that they are not modern forgeries or some such thing. But even so, content added to the encyclopedia should be verifiable. --BigDT 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would delete them all. Run a bot replacing the template with a replacable fair use tag on all of them that are not obviously PD would seem to be a less drastic solution though. Kotepho 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion above in archival templates, too much process, and change in process I made some new templates to go along with a new process. The main one is {{delete image}} which should be substd (output is {{dated delete image}}) on an image page (like ifd). This will add the image to a date-based category for processing. Also, the template says to discuss the deletion on the talk page, if the talk page exists it will also add the image to Category:Images and media for deletion active discussions. This way someone can quickly see which are the contentious deletions. Once 5 days has elapsed an admin would go through the date-based category. If a talk page exists the template will warn the closing admin to check for discussion. They would then decide and enclose the debate in the {{ifd top}} and bottom tags made above (This will categorize the talk page in Category:Archived image and media for deletion discussions) and remove the "delete image" template from the main image description page. Right now that archived discussion category wouldn't be date based at all, does that seem ok, maybe per month?

An example image with the tag is Image:Boston terrier head.gif. Please test out the creation of the talk page to see if that seems workable. I'm open to any changes of course :) - cohesion 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the tag should have a parameter for a reason for deletion? --24fan24 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, right after I did that I realized... Kinda useless without it :) The syntax is {{subst:delete image|i don't like it}} and it requires a reason. - cohesion 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so kind of like PROD for images, eh? That seems to be a good idea, since most deletion requests don't have any discussion whatsoever here. But it's kind of funny that IFD only gives 5 days, but NSD/NLD/RFU etc give a whole week before we can even touch them. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorta like prod, but probably not set up where if you disagree you just remove it. This system is pretty much how the replaceable far use works now. It seems a lot easier and less process-ful to me. From a workflow perspective it flows better with the other queues also. - cohesion 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like about it (and what I don't like about PROD) is that if someone were simply to remove the template, we'd have no idea. Only the nominator would be able to tell by looking at his/her past contributions to follow up. However, having archive pages centralizes things and makes it slightly more difficult to simply remove nominations -- they'll stay in the archive page's edit histories. The other thing I like about the current system is the ease of browsing through the nominations and being able to comment on nominations that need it. If it were more like NSD, doing that would be far more difficult because I'm certainly not inclined to check every single image talk page. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I have any further input, but I'd like to say that I agree with Howcheng that it it nice to have all of the discussions in a central place. --Iamunknown 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what if we end up doing something like PROD after all? A two-step deletion process. First, iPROD it (not to be confused with iPod), and if anyone objects by removing the tag, then go through regular IFD? That way, most will be handled without excessive red tape, and the contentious deletions can be discussed in a single location? howcheng {chat} 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod-style deletions for templates and images have been proposed before at various Village pumps and have failed to garner consensus. This one adds nothing new to the discussion. Perhaps the concept should be added to WP:PERENNIAL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

(forgot to sign, sorry --Iamunknown 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Using parserfunctions this template does add a new category if the talk page exists. This allows people to see which are contested more easily than having to look through all the image pages. I don't think I have seen this used much on templates, so it might be worth pointing out. - cohesion 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking through the various images up for deletion, and I've seen a lot of images that reasonably fall under fair use, but they're up for deletion because their copyright holder has a message on their web site saying that the images can't be used for any purpose except, perhaps, personal use. I was wondering, is what a copyright holder says relevant? Copyright holders can't revoke the right to fair use, right? Assuming that an image meets all of our criteria for non-free content, I don't think it really matters what kind of licensing terms a copyright holder lists. I'm asking because I'd like to clarify my understanding before contributing to some discussions. TomTheHand 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

legaly you can't stop fair use. Praticaly we don't really want to have to defend what we claim as fair use in court and people with such notices are more likely to sue.Geni 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While I see what you're saying, I don't see the need to act preemptively to avoid such bullying. It would seem to me that we'd just take the images down upon receiving complaints. TomTheHand 16:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We do that already, but most of the images being claimed under "fair use" on Wikipedia don't meet our EDP policy, which is intentionally narrowly defined so as to limit the number of non-free images that are on the site to those that are truly necessary. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I think "violates criteria X of WP:EDP" is a totally valid reason for deletion, but "ABC.com says you can't copy their images" isn't. TomTheHand 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TomTheHand. I have recently nominated a lot of images from ABC.com, but I believe you have misunderstood the reasons that make me believe we can't use that images. It's was very likely my fault, in that I wasn't capable to fully explain my concerns. If you allow me, I would like to try it once again here.

As of my understanding, the ABC.go.com's terms of use doesn't really says anything near "no fair use of this image". That, as you pointed out, would be a pointless and no-effect prohibition. What the terms says is simply that you (whoever that uses the site) can only make personal use of the material on the site. Just that, is enough to debunk the use of any of it's images as {{promotional}}, {{promophoto}}, {{publicity}}, {{promo}}, etc..., as the copyright holder had made it clear that those image are not to be used by the media (at least not without asking for further permission).

But, would we be able to use these images under some other fair use tag? I believe not. At least not for the uses we're usually making of these images. The images from abc.go.com that I nominated for deletion are images abc.go.com produced to enhance it's websites about some tv programs/series. Being the official website, they have the advantage of being the only one capable of producing such images. While other websites (fan-sites or critical sites, for instance) could grab and use screenshots from these tv programs, they can't produce unique pictures depicting the tv program's characters. That gives abc.go.com website an advantage over any other website about a given ABC tv show.

But what if we just get these images they produced to enhance their site and use it in our own site? Would that be "fair use"? I would say "not at all". We would be using they pictures in a way that nullifies the value these pictures have to the copyright holder: the value to give unique advantages to their website. This is no different than using images from CNN to illustrate an article about some news event.

When discussing fictional tv characters and plots, we should use (whenever necessary), screnshots from the tv program. A screenshot is not an image produced by the copyright holder to enhance it's website. It's a small piece of the copyrighted work we're commenting about (the tv program), and this is exactly the king of use the "Fair use" provision in law is set up to protect.

So, to answer your concern, the "valid reason" for deletion of such images is because our use of them "violates criteria 2 of WP:EDP". --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given this thought, but I'm really on the fence about it. I see what you're saying, but it seems to be that the web site is promotional material for their product (the television show). It is fair use to take images from promotional material and use them to illustrate the product. TomTheHand 13:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because we would be competing with the website. There's a market for Lost-related webpages, and we can't use somebody else's material when writing our own Lost-related webpage. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that true promotional material would be distributed without want of monetary gain for publishing and redistribution (though likely not commercial reuse or derivative works). Our use of such material would thus be compliant with our policy regarding Wikipedia:Non-free content. I've yet to see, however, true promotional material; we've seen that the terms of use on Fox.com, ABC.com and CBS.com certainly are what the terms would have to be to reasonably constitute "promotional material". --Iamunknown 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the Internet has allowed the creation of a market for tv-series byproducts. But, fortunately, the fair use provision in U.S. law (and Wikipedia's policy), allow us to use a small piece of a copyright work to talk about this copyright work, and tv-screenshots are exactly that. We should avoid these so-called 'promotional images'. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The version of Image:Stickball.jpg at commons:Image:Stickball.jpg is a clearly far superior scan of the same painting. Would Image:Stickball.jpg then be speedyable?--Pharos 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No that wouldn't satisfy the requirements of WP:CSD. Its currently tagged with {{nowcommons}} but being that it is not a bit for bit copy that tag is not appropriate. I will however nominate it for deletion here. --24fan24 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Pharos 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem --24fan24 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for some thoughts on an issue I have come across. On image Image:Fort William cannon.jpg the license is a creative commons with attribution (by exclusion it also allows for commercial use) but when you follow the link to the source (Shifting Pixel) the page is explicidly excluding commercial use - "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License." - this is likely as the images are for sale.

I was going to change the license to a non-free tag, but realized that the uploader, the photogropher and the webhost all appear to be the same same person. Based on the uploader's talk page (and an image that was speedied), he is aware of the different licensing.

My question is, is it alright to have the same image licensed differently on two sources. If yes, then I guess there is no problem; if no, what should be done?

These are some great pictures and definatly add greatly to WP, but I wonder if there is an issue.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this practice is acceptable. This practice seems to be the same concept as dual license a work. --24fan24 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many ifd sections have comments about the image being on commons; is this an argument for or against retaining the article? --Aarktica 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a navigation bar at the top of some IfD pages; is there some sort of template that makes this happen? --Aarktica 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's an argument against retaining the image, because if it's on Commons, we don't need a local duplicate here.
2. {{subst:ifd log}} puts the header there, but if you don't do it on the day of the log page, the dates will be wrong and you'll manually have to change them. howcheng {chat} 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wondering if I had missed an easier method of updating the older pages. Thanks! --Aarktica 21:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is currently wholesale deletion of magazine covers on pages that contain no other graphic representation of individuals. These covers are not in violation of fair use if no other image exists on the page. What is the rationale for deleting them? --David Shankbone 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do you know if any of the images have/had associated IfD discussions? --Aarktica 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Only the slightest. Typically, there is no discussion. But here is one where the mentality is coming through. The article on Angel Ramos has no other media available, and the guy is deaf. He appeared on the cover of Deaf Life, and this is mentioned in the article. Yet this image is not fair use? How is that?! This is a snippet:

*Strong keep. One of the stranger requests I've seen to delete fair use. First, it illustrates Angel Ramos, the subject of the article; this goes to the very intent of fair use. Second, it illustrates an aspect of Ramos, namely his hearing disability. Third, the magazine in question is discussed in the article itself. There are almost too many examples to cite where this is acceptable, but Shah Rukh Khan, John Courtney Murray, and Jack Abramoff, to name just a few of the thousands of magazine covers to illustrate an article and its subjects. This RfD is mistaken, or someone will have quite a bit of cleaning up to do on Wikipedia.--David Shankbone 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed we have. But the cleanup is already taking place. See [May 2] for similar cases. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I checked the link, there were so many covers deleted, without discussion, that it seems this is going too far. Where was this decision as a policy made? As a long-time contributor of free media of subjects that are some of the hardest to obtain, and as someone who has acquainted myself with the free use policy, I see this as a misuse and/or a misunderstanding of the doctrine. Oh yeah, I'm a law student, as well. --David Shankbone 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me where we need magazine covers outside of articles about magazines or articles about the photographer. We're typically not entering into critical commentary about the work, but instead about the subject of the work in other articles. There are going to be exceptions, of course, and that's why we have discussions. Jkelly 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's use of magazine covers and other non-free media is intentionally stricter than what U.S. law allows, so your point about being a law student is moot. See the Foundation licensing policy for the overall goals of the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to non-free content. It's not about any harm to the copyright holder, it's about freedom -- the freedom for anyone to do whatever they want with Wikipedia's content. Now obviously we are not going to get away with having no non-free content whatsoever, but by keeping it to a bare minimum, we come that much closer to achieving the Foundation's goals. Most uses of magazine covers on Wikipedia have been, to my knowledge, simply illustrating text that states that so-and-so appeared on the cover of such-and-such magazine. Well, we don't need the picture of the cover to tell us that. We should only be using those covers where the cover itself was of importance or the source of some controversy. An excellent example of this can be found in Demi Moore. Does that help? howcheng {chat} 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. Thanks. --David Shankbone 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit of working through "unused images" and transferring those that are suitable, to the Commons. They are listed through Special:Unusedimages. But there are thousands of unused map images on Wikipedia which are already on commons (for the dozens I've checked) but in a different format - on the special page they start around image 150 and keep going to at least 2000 . The Wikipedia impages are PNG and the Commons images are the preferred format of SVG. Is there a way of nominating these for deletion en masse? As tagging them with {{ncd}} for deletion (if they are eligible as the Commons image is in a different format) or listing them individually on IFD will take an age! Madmedea 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I know, all affected articles would still have to be listed; perhaps you could compile a list on a subpage of your user space? --Aarktica 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't think there would be an easy answer - although I will put together that list, that will take long enough! I just wish I knew why you can nominate multiple related articles for deletion but not multiple images.Madmedea 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, articles for deletion have their own subpage, whereas images for deletion are just listed. --Strangerer (Talk) 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The first few hundred are now listed at User:Madmedea/Sandbox4 with the links to their commons equivalents. There must be a way of making an exception to the usual individual deletion process for circumstances such as these. I intend to keep listing about 100 a day until they're all done.Madmedea 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • This begs the question: "How did you find them?" Perhaps there is something else they all have in common (e.g. a category, uploader, etc) which an automated process can use to locate them all. --Aarktica 12:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I came across them all through Special:Unusedimages - which is a "virtual" page created on demand. They were all uploaded by the same bot - User:The Anomebot which is currently inactive - its been active in other ways but its only activity in the Image namespace was uploading these images - so for someone more technically knowledgeable than me that might be a way of listing all the images. I'll approach the user who appears to own the bot and see if they can help. Madmedea 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The user has been kind enough to bot list all the map files that it uploaded - User:The Anome/Old US map images - 3 state maps did not have commons equivalents so I've taken them out of the list, and I've manually fixed the half dozen or so that had slightly different file names on the Commons. Now how do I go about getting all of these deleted? I know it breaches protocol but there must be a way of getting an Admin cabal to make a decision in a case such as this. Madmedea 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would suggest just moving that list (with the users permission) to a subpage of the current IFD subpage and then create a new section heading on the listing along the lines of "Lots of superceded US map images" where you explain the situation and link to the subpage for a full list of the images. The same few users seems to be crediting with creating most of these, I'd suggest dropping them a notice and consider that good enough as far as notifying "uploaders" go. Technicaly you would be expected to tag each image with the IFD template, but as long as the images are not actualy used and the users involved with creating and uploading these have been notified and considering the ungodly number of images I think we can invoke WP:IAR rater than create a lot of extra work just for the sake of protocol. Removing unused, superseded images should be fairly uncontroversial after all (if someone comes along as insist each and every image must be tagged we can probably find someone with a bot to do that though). --Sherool (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In {{ifd}} there's a link to the discussion, but it's just to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Example.png. After that rolls off the IFD main page, that link doesn't become particularly useful for anyone who happens to come by and is just late in joining in the discussion. I propose that we link to the log page instead of the main page, but in order to do so, it would require that {tl|ifd}} be subst'ed. Not that big of a deal, I suppose... any objections? If there are none within a few days, I'll implement that (or someone else can jump the gun and just go do it). howcheng {chat} 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you create something like a {{ifd2}} that inserts the real {{ifd}} tag (like, {{nsd}} that inserts the {{no source}} tag)? It sounds good. Remember to update quickdelete.js :) --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Abu's suggestion ... that way, there's less risk of accidentally blanking part of the description when closing an IFD as a keep. Something else that may be worthwhile - set it up like Images needing editor assistance at upload categories where after some arbitrary length of time (30 days or so), the image will put itself into a category of incomplete IFD nominations. That way, if someone just sticks an IFD tag on an image and never completes the process, we will find out about it. --BigDT 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I was planning to move contents of the existing {{ifd}} to {{dated ifd}} and convert {{ifd}} to call the other with date parameters. I wasn't planning to do the categories, though, because that would just mean more maintenance effort. The after-30-days category thing is interesting, but I'm not sure how the MediaWiki software works. If no one actually loads the image description page of the nominated image, will it still get placed in the category (since that template won't be executed until someone loads it)? howcheng {chat} 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is (was?) a bot going and checking if an image page with the ifd tag had been listed in the last X number of days. If it was not found, the image was listed on the current day. I'm not sure how I could go about finding out if the bot is still running.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That was User:BJBot who is sporadic at best. Need to get the code to have someone else run those critical functions. MECU≈talk 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is ready to go, but I realized one thing: Once I make the change to {{ifd}}, all previously nominated images are going to have a big This template must be substituted. Replace {{ifd with {{subst:ifd. message on them. Do we care? howcheng {chat} 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This and this. Plenty more in the same category too. --PaxEquilibrium 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • If they're free just tag them to be moved to the commons with {{Copy to Commons}} or do it yourself. Madmedea 16:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my proposal here. These images were uploaded after 1 Jan 2006 and should not be have been tagged as GFDL-presumed. I will tag all these images with a special template created for the job. These images will be deleted after 7 days if the uploader has not put a proper tag. The template will add the images in Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006. If anyone has any objection, please state them at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_action. I will put Aksibot to work soon if there is no objection. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to close the discussion for a deleted image (Dores-Deaerator diag1.png), when I ran into a bizarre outcome —; the edit button points to an unconnected template. I have closed many other discussions, and this is the first time I ran into this issue. Is there any logical explanation for this outcome? --Aarktica 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone just forgot to substitute {{ifd2}} (which is used to start the discussion on the IFD page). Edit the log page and just Wikipedia:subst it. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That worked. Thanks. --Aarktica 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I was wondering if part of the images for deletion process could include posting a notice about the I&MfD on the Talk pages of articles on which the image appears (if it's just a few). Sometimes there's an easy Fair Use rationale which could be written but can't be done after the image is deleted. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do have {{ifdc}} which people sometimes use and sometimes don't, which essentially serves that purpose. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful to know -- I'll add it as a suggested step to the deletion page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Led Zeppelin has numerous screen shots of the band that were uploaded with fair use rationale for use on articles about the DVD they were taken from. Almost none of them are used in keeping with what fair use rationale provided. Rather than just take them down, I am trying to figure out if these can be used and will be happy to put up fair use rationale if somebody could show me exactly what is needed. I have uploaded a number of images on my own, with fair use rationale that I have drafted, so am sort of in the loop. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In some articles it may be perfectly justifiable to have more than a few non-free images. More common, however, is the article with too many non-free images to fulfill our NFCC #3, where many are just decorative and give the appearance of a fan-site. At User:Quadell/Pages with too many non-free images, I have listed many articles with lots of non-free images. FYI. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an IFD regular, but recently browsed through it. I noticed many unused images nominated for deletion with no comments. Would it be handy to have some kind of proposed deletion system for images. Like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. The criteria for for prod images could be something like 1: only if the image is unused. 2:The uploader must be warned (the second should always happen of course). Any thoughts? Garion96 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unused images are not like articles, they'd be too hard for someone to randomly come across and save. Articles on the other hand are usually plausible search terms and someone may (and oftentimes does) come by and clean the article up. Listing images in a central spot is pretty much the only way to go, if you ask me. -N 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• We've had this proposal a number of times. Having them all on one page just makes a lot of sense. It's easy for people to go through a lot of discussions, for example, especially since images are often nominated in bunches where the same rationale would apply to all. Moving "non-controversial" ones to another location just increases the amount of admin overhead. I mean, we already have CAT:NR, CAT:NL, CAT:NS, CAT:ORFU, CAT:NT, and WP:PUI, all of which hold images that may be deleted. howcheng {chat} 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To N: Correct, but there is no difference to go to WP:IFD or to go to a proposed deletion category. Either way you will not (often) randomly come across an image proposed for deletion.
  • To Howcheng:It would clean up the page anyway. Plus it's easier to go through a category with thumbnails (since prod wouldn't allow fair use images) to see if there is something worth saving. And it's much easier for a tagger, just add the prod tag with a reason. Instead of also adding to WP:IFD. As said, only if unused and uploader is warned of course. Garion96 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Your proposal eliminates one step out of three (tag image, notify user, list on IFD page). However, all modesty aside, I think most of the "high volume" nominators use my handy-dandy image deletion script, so they are not particularly burdened with the extra editing. Besides, it ain't broke right now, so as has been said before, I think this is really a solution looking for a problem. howcheng {chat} 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see another category for speedy deletion of images: Photos that are clearly just personal foolishness or MySpace type photos like this one. We have hundreds, perhaps thousands of such images on WP that should have been deleted right from the start. This would be very similar to CSD A7: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. Has this type of deletion been discussed previously? ●DanMS • Talk 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• People are allowed personal photos in their user page. I'm strongly against not giving the courtesy to the uploader of a few days' notice. -N 00:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than transcluding daily logs, would it not be better to simply link to them (as at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion)? I have a reasonably fast connection, but it still takes a while to load the page. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, when did that happen? I guess it's been a while since I've looked at CFD. I have no objections to this. howcheng {chat} 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Will doing so break any templates or transclusions? I don't work all that much with images, so there may be something I'm unaware of. I'm wary of making a change that may crash a deletion process. :) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My script only deals with the log pages, which are transcluded onto this page. Those transclusions can be easily converted to links. Oh, actually, the only place I can think of where we might have a problem is in {{ifdc}} which will link to the main IFD page when the log parameter is missing. howcheng {chat} 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make the log parameter mandatory? Or, we could create and link to an "All current discussions" page that transcludes each of the daily logs (see here for the CfD equivalent). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. For personal stress reasons, I'm taking a break from controversial IFDs (and rfus, etc) for a while. (A pseudo-Wikibreak, if you will.) I'll still be deleting many of the non-controversial ones, but I won't tend to even read a case if it's disputed. However, if there's a particular tricky case you'd like me to look at, or if my opinion is requested, just leave me a note on my talk page and I'll check it out. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wimp. (j/k) howcheng {chat} 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this when you posted it (sorry!). Thanks for your work, Quadell, and enjoy the break.  :) --Iamunknown 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since a great number of images are nominated for deletion each day, it is very hard to follow a specific debate with a watchlist, and inconvenient to link to a specific debate. I propose that each nomination should have its own subpage, which can be transcluded into the daily log page. This is already done at AfD and WP:MfD. — The Storm Surfer 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I'd say a good 90% of image nominations here engender no debate whatsoever. This would mean a whole lot of pages being created and edited only by one person. A single daily log page works quite well for our purposes (you should have seen how it used to be -- all the image nominations on just one page!). howcheng {chat} 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list these uncontested nominations on the IfD page at all? If no one objects to a nomination, the process is almost exactly like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, except that those are only listed in a category. The IfD page would be more readable if it had just the contested nominations. --Derlay 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with not listing the "uncontested nominations" is how would anyone know if the nomination is going to be uncontested or not. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How is that a problem? No one knows for certain if placing {{prod}} on an article is going to be contested, but that doesn't stop the proposed deletion process from working. --Derlay 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]

See this discussion above. I wouldn't mind a proposed deletion system for images. Garion96 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I really wish we could have that. Or current system is not scaling well; some days see 280+ images listed. But prod-type systems for both images and templates have been proposed before, and have not been accepted well by the community. (The template-prod was mostly because people do not watch templates they are interested in. Image-prod, I dunno.  :\) --Iamunknown 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am likley the biggest "culprit" of these large nomination blitzes which cause the main IfD page, and the daily pages, to bog down -- If people want me to limit my nominations just ask. But be aware that there are 100,000 plus orphaned images currently listed at Special:Unusedimages - going back as far as July 2002. And for ever one nominated at IfD, I am likely tagging at least one for speedy/no source/no license/orphaned fair use. Images here at WP are a major issue that has been left unchecked for quite some time. The number of images that are either obviously or very likely copyrighted is stagering. People place the "PD-self" on album covers, tv screenshots and video game screenshots all the time - and I am only looking at orphaned images.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We miss you already, Gay Cdn. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at this image which was deleted. There's no way to find out where its IfD debate is. The deleting admin should give the link, or atleast the date on which the image was deleted so we can find its IfD, right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By the deletion log, it looks like the image was deleted as an uncontested RFU (replaceable fair use) per WP:CSD#I7. In general, though, I wish deletion log entries had a link to the XFD log. --Iamunknown 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy should require some way of tracking back to the IfD so we can know why the image was deleted, who nominated it for deletion, etc. The only way possible way right now is to mention the date of deletion (and a link to the archives), so we can go back to the archives and click on that date. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no link in the log just go to the deleted image page and click "What links here", if need be restrict the list to the Wikipedia namespace only and you should quite easily find the IFD subpage the image was listed on. See here for a random example. --Sherool (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How did you get that WhatLinksHere link? I cant find it, except typing it by hand. Here's a link to the page where the image was being used.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's in the “toolbox” on the left-hand side.

Nope, cant see it on this link. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to go to the actual Image:NonieDarwish.jpg page to get it. The problem is that unless the page was explicitly linked to (with a leading colon) clicking on red imagelinks will take you to the upload page by default instead. If you see at the very top of the upload page you should see a link to the deletion log though, from there you can click on the image name to get to the actual image page itself (a bit convoluded I'll agree). It's probably faster to just type for example Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:NonieDarwish.jpg in the search box and hit "go" (though as previously mentioned this particular image was not deleted via IFD). Just remember the name is case sensitive, so best to copy & paste the image name, Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Noniedarwish.jpg for example (lowercase d in Darwish) will not give information for the same image... --Sherool (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes its hard to find, we basically have to type it by hand if an image has been deleted. I added this instruction now. Edit summaries should be used nicely for deletions atleast, if not for other edits. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree that the quality of deletion summaries needs to be improved (and not just for images). All summaries should link the relevant CSD section or XFD discussion. Maybe I should propose this be added to one of the higher-up deletion procedure pages? — The Storm Surfer 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure by all means. I already some stuff here, hopefully the admins will follow that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits there look good; thanks. If you run into admins not following this instruction in the future, they'll probably change their ways if you point it out to them. The reasons are compelling. — The Storm Surfer 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been deleting a lot of images here, and I haven't been linking back to the discussions. I'll start. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a deletion summary like "Unencyclopedic, per Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 7"? Is that good enough? I've been using "Listed on IFD for over 5 days, unencyclopedic" and the like. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I always link to the IFD log page. I think that's enough -- it allows interested parties to easily find the deletion nomination and it's easy for me to paste into the summary, making it convenient for all. howcheng {chat} 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Articles when selected for deletion have an AfD, which is visible on the article pages
• Templates when AfD'd also show up the deletion notice on the articles page
• Images dont show any signs in an article of being nominated for deletion. How many times do people check and click on an image to see its license status? No one cares and no one clicks. This results in the sudden uncontested deletion of an image because no one knows if an image is being selected for deletion. One day the image was there and the next there's a red link. Thats whats happening here.

How can this be fixed? The only way is to force the nominator to add the deletion notice as part of the caption of the image (like in an AfD). Many legitimate images are disappearing fast due to image deletionists. An example is this image being used in Osama bin Laden. I propose that the deletion guidelines should be revised to ask the nominator to include a deletion notice in the image caption, with a link to the deletion debate, just like in a regular article/template deletion. If anyone doesnt oppose this I'll make the change in the policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The vast majority of deletions are uncontested. After the image deletion, anyone can contact the deleting administrator, or go to deletion review. Adding this to policy would just create a lot of unnecessary work. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my post? Thats what I said - the vast majority of deletions go uncontested. You disagree with the captions idea because it involves more work for you since you're an image deletionist too. And your crusade against Fair use is not right. So why do image deletions go uncontested? I mentioned the reasons above - because no one knows that an image has been selected for deletion. No one clicks on an image to check if its been IfD'd or not. You have to notify people that an image is being deleted. They wont see your IfD notice within the page, but they'lll see the IfD link if its placed as a caption in the image. Ofcourse it will increase your work. You have to give people a fair chance to contest an image deletion and the first step in doing that is NOTIFYING them visibly that an image is being deleted. I want some unbiased opinions. If you're an image deletionist please dont reply and dont tell me its going to increase your work. Your work is deleting many genuine contestable images and it needs to stop. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If nobody notices when an image is deleted, then is it really that important to have it here to begin with? It's a "if a tree in the forest falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" kind of thing, IMHO. And the uploader is already notified as a part of process when one of their uploaded images has been nominated for deletion. If the uploader is absent and the image is truly non-replaceable, someone who watches the article can work to get the image back afer it is deleted - 'undelete' and deletion review are still available. Protecting the encyclopedia from copyright infringement is important. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Videmus Omnia, as long as the uploader is notified, the nominator has done the most they can reasonably do Bleh999 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict: I think Matt has a good point and others are clearly missing it. Videmus, people notice the deletion after the event - they don't notice the ifd process that leads to the deletion. You say that the vast majority of ifd's are uncontested - that's because no-one knows about it. There needs to be a mechanism that notifies people of such ifd's perhaps on each talk page that image is used. The fact is, editors come and go on wikipedia. Someone might have uploaded an image years ago, and is no longer around. I see images disappear all the time and the ifd is already closed. Merbabu 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Matt57. While article pages are often added to watchlists, images usuaully are not. There should be something, some template that can be created so that editors can be informed with a note next to the image that a particular image is up for deletion.--Sefringle^Talk 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking Sefringle, but that might be disruptive - or on the other hand not noticed. How about something that triggers a notice on the article talk page (and hence watchlists)? Merbabu 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but we already have {{ifdc}}, {{di-no license-caption }} and {{deletable image-caption}}. Are editors not currently using these? I personally do, and usually include an edit summary like, "Image:X is a [[WP:CSD|candidate for speedy deletion", or, "Image:X is listed for deletion". --Iamunknown 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact manner in which those templates notify editors? Normally the first I hear about an image deletion is when the link is removed from the article in my watchlist. From the way I understand the use of these templates, every single image page that an editor is interested in would then have to be 'watchlisted' for an editor to be notifed. Merbabu 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Those templates are added to the image captions in the articles, so that people who have the article on their watchlists, or people who are reading the articles, can be notified about the deletion discussion or pending deletion (whichever is applicable). howcheng {chat} 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I did not know that. Does the editor actually add these to the article, or do they add it to the image page? If it is meant to be the article, I'm guessing that editors rarely do it, otherwise I'd see more ifd's pop up. It would be nice if this process was automated in such a manner that if an image was up for deletion, i would be notified through any articles in my watchlist that contain that image. Otherwise, from my understanding the current system relies on (a) a deletion nominator putting in the tag and (b) me actually seeing this tag in the caption. If I am understanding this correctly. Merbabu 06:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When you look through the list of deletion nominations, you'll see that three quarters are orphan images. Obviously there's nothing that can be done about those. Many of the rest violate some image policy or other, where the most helpful comments would be from those who specialize in image policy, not those who specialize in the subject of the image. Still, there are others where comments from those familiar with the image subject would be helpful. For those relatively few cases, it is genuinely useful to add a note to the image's caption in whatever articles in appears in, alerting specialists in the subject to comment. But it isn't helpful for an image that is in clear violation of, say, NFCC #2, to have a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT voters show up who haven't read our image policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting the process is best kept hushed to a select few. Ie, one would hope that if a crowd of WP:ILIKEIT voters weighed in when there are clear policy violations, those determining deciding on the process would ignore them. Ie, I'm not suggesting that ifd is some kind of subjective consensus based content dispute. On the other hand, we would like to know when these things are kept secret. Any attempt to cover the process up for 'convenience' should be strongly discouraged. And this should mean that clear violations should be kept even though consensus is 'keep'. --Merbabu 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing secret on the Wiki. I don't think it should be hushed up, but I do think that the comments of those who understand our image policy are more useful than the comments of those who don't. There's not anything wrong with ILIKEIT votes, that we should prevent them; but there's nothing useful about them to make us try to encourage them either. My point is, we shouldn't require nominators to go through extra trouble if it's not going to improve the process. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You all, Videmus Omnia and Bleh999, Howcheng are image deletionists so your opinions of rejecting my idea are not surprising. This template that Iamunknown pointed out is what I was looking for: {{Ifdc}}. 3 of you (Bleh99 specifically) - why are you not using this image template and the other 2 as well? Start using these templates or I'll take this complaint to the ANI. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You would make a more convincing case if you cut out the threats and personal attacks, Matt. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. What these people are doing is destroying Wikipedia by deleting images that could have stayed legally. They (including you) need to start using these templates and follow the procedure. There's a reason why these templates were made, which were to notify everyone visibly that images are being IfD'd. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Using the term "deletionist" in this context can be easily taken as a personal attack -- you're using it like a slur, whether you intend to or not. And before you start throwing unfounded accusations around, you need to start looking in people's contribution histories, because you'll find that I've consistently used those templates to warn about pending deletions (except the occasional time when I forget because I'm in the middle of something else when I find the image to be deleted). The job I'm trying to do is to make sure non-free images in the articles meet all the criteria for inclusion. It's unfortunate that they are not widely understood. Furthermore, enforcement of the policies has stepped up, such that things we used to let slide are now being scrutinized more closely. This has been a multi-step process: 1) get the low-hanging fruit like easily replaceable non-free content; 2) get the more contested ones like news agency photos for notable subjects; 3) get the ones more in the gray areas. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people call themselves deletionists. Anyway, the point is, if an image is nominated for deletion, these people should use the image deletion templates like pointed above, so people are notified of the deletion process. If you want to educate people about whats legal and whats not, you can do so by putting in these templates and involving them in the dicussion process. As you're an admin you should enforce the policies and procedures for image deletion, which include using these tags. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples: if an image is nominated for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, it would make sense to notify editors of the article, since they may want to (and be able to) provide a rationale. But if the image is nominated for competing with the copyright-holder, there's nothing anyone can say that will change the nature of the copyrighted work. Making the nominators go through extra "paperwork" merely slows down the process (a goal some users might like, but which Wikipedia as a whole does not want). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case, if an image is being nominated for deletion, the nominators (including you) need to use the image deletion templates IamUnknown pointed out above like {{Ifdc}} and the two others. That was the point of my discussion here. Thats enough notification for the editors. If they want to privately notify people too, thats optional but not really needed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the free advice. But, like everything, I'm sure some people will follow your advice and some people won't. That's life. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if I dont see Bleh or you or anyone else not following proper procedures, I'll complain at ANI. Then its up to the administrators whether they're seroius about seeing policies being administered or whether they're okay with people who just want as less work as possible at the expense of procedures. You're an administrator too and its strange that you dont care about following procedures (using these templates e.g.). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to the editor who isn't using the tags first, as it would spare us—and the admins at WP:AN/I—a lot of unintentional drama. --Iamunknown 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, come on everyone. The apparently opposing viewpoints are not actually that mutually exclusive - bad vibes are being spread around things that are actually not that conflicting.

Matt has a good point about lack of notice of ifd's - in my experience, notification often (usually?) only comes once the process has closed and image gone.

To Quadell and others: on the other hand, of course no-one is suggesting that blatant copyright violations that the image should be kept, even if better notification would see 100 WP:ILIKEIT voters voting for 'keep'. If it is a blatant violation, then it should be deleted no matter what. Thus, i don't see why this is more effort.

In the grey cases, editors have a right to know, as they do with all wikipedia processes. Of course Quadell and others are not saying this should be done in 'secret'. But, although it is said in good faith, arguing against better notification because it makes for a less convenient process has the appearance to other editors of 'hiding' something.

Thus, I suggest one or a combination of the following:

• Blatant and obvious copyvio's be deleted no matter how many people vote otherwise.
• Appropriate notification procedures (such as the templates talk about above) are applied. But this relies on people remembering to do the 'right' thing, so this is flawed to some extent (and others don't like the disturbance to readers - fair enough).
• Thus, can we have a system where automatic notification somehow works through the article watchlist system? Ie, if an image on an article in my watchlist is up for ifd, can this somehow be triggered automatically? Maybe thru the talk page? I know this is a technical question and this may the wrong place.

Any thoughts? --Merbabu 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're ruining a perfectly good argument! Stop that! :-)

Yes, I think you're right. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

They're trying to make a much better system where a watermark appears ([3]) indicating image problems. But until this is resolved, editors should use these templates. Howcheng is better is using these tags, but Bleh99 and Quadell (admin) flatly ignore these tag insertions as far as I can see. I've done all I can, I've told you guys here, complained at ANI, 2 of you are admins so beyond this point there's nothing I can do. If the admins dont care much about an issue, well thats all I can do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. That section of AN/I does not seem to exist. What's going on? — The Storm Surfer 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive273. howcheng {chat} 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anything special have to be done in regards to Image:Flower.JPG, which I just orphaned by uploading and using a new one? Didn't know if it could just be speedied since its on the Commons or whatnot. Tarc 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It actually isn't on Wikipedia's servers; it's only on Commons. (It can't be deleted here since it doesn't exist here.) There's nothing more that needs to be done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The third sentence under "Instructions" for "What not to list here" lists what purport to be examples of the criteria for speedy deletion. That list includes "thumbnails". Is this an error? I ask because WP:CSD uses the word thumbnail only once, as follows: "Corrupt or empty image. Before deleting this type of image, verify that the MediaWiki engine cannot read it by previewing a resized thumbnail of it." If that is an error, "thumbnails" could simply be removed from that sentence; otherwise, some clarification at this article, or at WP:CSD, or both, would be helpful. Thanks, --rich<Rich Janis 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)>

Well, the Wikipedia software automatically creates thumbnails from full-sized images, so it isn't necessary to upload thumbnail-sized images. If someone were to mistakenly upload one, it would probably qualify under WP:CSD#I1: Any image that is a redundant copy, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia.... — The Storm Surfer 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This image was recently deleted but had a FU rationale etc. It has been tagged for a few days, but the tag was removed after I added a rationale. I don't know how to access the history of a deleted file, can someone explain what happened?--SidiLemine 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, forget about it. Wrong image.--SidiLemine 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to monitor IfD for deletion debates on old, historical pictures, but am having trouble filtering them out from the rest of the nominations. In general, I'm after black-and-white images taken before 1940, but would like a way to filter out IfDs on old images in general. Is there any interest in filtering IfD by date the picture was taken, or by topic area (eg. history)? Carcharoth 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and is there a way to look at speedy deletions in the same way? Carcharoth 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, that would be difficult without creating extra work for the nominators. I suppose it could be possible to have several sections of the page ("Orphans", "Non-free", "Historical", "Other") but I know a lot of people use automated tools like my script or TWINKLE that would have a difficult time with this. Speedy deletions would be equally difficult if not more because you'd have to educate a lot of speedy taggers to categorize the images when they're being tagged. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the Template:AfD_footer these instructions just aren't specific enough. The AFD tells people exactly what to do and where to do it, while this just give a very vague description, and actually leaves some things out(such as creating a subpage). It also doesn't mention anywhere that you need an entirely different account once you get to Wikimedia part. Me5000 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't have individual subpages per image, for one thing. But having something about Commons would be good. howcheng {chat} 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another quirk to deal with, if at all possible. A nomination was just withdrawn and the color of the text was converted to #aaa , which is unreadable. The unreadable version (with color #aaa) is visible at this diff. Possibly something like, say #CC6600 , #993300 or another legible color might be recommended for withdrawals, so we'all can read and review the discussion if necessary? A proposed alternative is at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_23#Image:Hess.jpg, unless it's been changed in the interim. If it's been changed, the suggestion of a potentially readable text-color was implemented at this diff Haukurth, I trust you are familiar with these color codes? ... Kenosis 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someoen help me with the license of this image Image:Blackseaforlogo.gif--Nérostrateur 10:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have a lot of admin attention here at IFD, can we get some help over at WP:PUI? There's a big monstrous backlog over there now. If you're not familiar with PUI works, at very least just deleting the ones that obviously copyvios will help out tremendously. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On AfD, large numbers of essentially identical nominations are grouped so arguments don't have to be repeated again and again. Is this not the procedure here as well? Frankly, nominating several dozen images for obviously bogus reasons is a pain in the ass, since it requires all the spurious charges to be answered again and again. Why aren't identical noms grouped as in AfD? WilyD 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They can be, but I guess people don't do it much. {{ifd2a}} exists for this purpose on the log page and if you do {{ifd|section heading|log=date}} on the image page, you can direct people to a specific section heading. howcheng {chat} 03:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Migssant19 (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyright images from various websites and claiming them as "public domain". If you look at the "AeromarB7..." images, you can see that they were all copied from websites, and on those websites different photographers were given credit for the images. For Image:AeromarB733.jpg "Javier F. Bobadilla" took the photo [4]; for Image:AeromarB757.jpg "Tobias Rose " took the photo [5]; for Image:AeromarB763.jpg "Egon Johanse" took the photo [6], etc. The user has also been uploading logos and claiming them for the public domain. I do not believe this user can be trusted, and I am highly skeptical that this user has ever contributed any original content, so while it may be drastic, I would like to have all of this user's image uploaded deleted. So a) does anyone agree with me? and b) if so, what would be the best process in which to tag/delete these? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that most of the uploaded in April start "I found this on a website" or "I found it with google".-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The current method of displaying the table of contents on this page seems a bit odd. {{TOClimit|limit=3}} is a better implementation of the hack - it shows the [hide] link and the extra spacing between the links is removed. Does anyone see any problems with changing this? --- RockMFR 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Duae Quartunciae just brought up an interesting point on my talk page. The instructions for administrators says "Nominations should be processed by administrators after being listed for 5 days." I've always processed images once that day's subpage falls off the main IFD page, figuring time was up, but that's not exactly right. If an image in listed at 11pm (server time) on August 24, that day's subpage will stop being listed just 4 days and 1 hour later. Should we list six days of subpages on IFD, instead of five, so that all images have at least five full days of discussion before they fall off? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here, Quadell. I'm still fairly new so don't always know the best place to raise an issue. I'll add a comment I made in your talk page....

We are an international encyclopedia. For example, I am now fully acclimatized to it being Friday August 24, and am about to have lunch. In more backward parts of the world :-) there are people who are still struggling with Thursday. It's convenient to have a single consistent time zone for tagging events; but which time zone is used doesn't really matter, as long as we are consistent. Hence, I don't think we should give any special significance to the instant of time when one day becomes another. I think the natural understanding of "5 days" would be a period of time, "120 hours". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a concrete proposal for managing the main page.

• Leave the transcluded listings of recent discussion at five pages. in the section "Recent nominations".
• Keep the one page most recently transferred from transclusion to linkage in a distinct section. Call it "Discussions about to close approaching conclusion". Leave it as a link, not as transclusion; people who scan the main page are better to focus on more recent discussions and give discussions more than 4 full days old a bit of time to die down. The die hards for particular content items will be going to the page directly anyway.
• Keep the the section of "Old discussions" for pages that have had more than the five full days since nomination.
• When a day ticks over, there should be a standard procedure with three steps.

1. Move the page link in "Discussions about to close approaching conclusion" up into the section "Old discussions".
2. Take the oldest of "Recent nominations", make it a link rather than transclude, and move it into "Discussions about to close approaching conclusion"
3. Create a new empty page for the brand new day, and transclude it into the list of "Recent nominations".

• Now we can get rid of the section on the main page called "Footer" as redundant, and already covered because the empty page is always created by default. This keeps it simple for noobs like me who get confused by too many instructions for making a new nomination.—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD. But not too bold. I don't think you need to transclude six days of discussion. I think you are better to leave the transclusion alone. It can help to let discussions die down a little bit after four full days. I have implemented the easiest part of my proposal above. Furthermore I have done it with a parser function, so it is all automatic.

IF there is a page that is currently five days olds, then all discussions in that page will have had at least four full days since nomination and will be approaching conclusion. I have added a "Discussions approaching conclusion" as a subsection of "Old discussions". The whole subsection is actually within an #if parser function, so it is only added if the relevant page is actually there. This subsection just gives a link, not a transclusion. If people like this idea and leave it alone, then in about 20 hours it will automatically be reset to bring in the August 20 page. The rest of the "Old discussion" section can be left as it is, and new links added as needed. I've commented out the August 19 link, since it now appears in the new subsection automatically. I don't think these changes require any meaningful change to procedures. How do people like it? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if this is a FAQ. Could you please give me a list of all media that I uploaded that you think needs to be deleted? I have uploaded a bunch of images to Wikipedia since I started editing a little over one year ago. I will be happy to deal with them in a batch. I try very hard to ask for the rules and follow them and don't have any idea what images you think need to be deleted, or how to assemble that list, or I would do this myself. -Susanlesch 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a timely reminder for those participating in IfD debates to remember to check Commons for free replacement images. See this edit here, where, after a long, long debate, it was eventually discovered, just after the debate closed, that the free replacement image someone found late in the discussion, had been on Commons since July 2006! Copied to WT:NFC. Carcharoth 00:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i am thinking there might be a Creative Commons licensing issue with this image. It was recently uploaded with the licensing that it was a commons image. However, a check of the image indicates that it is not such, and that AP maintains the copyright to the image. This is the second time the user who uploaded the image has fudged a licensing to try and bypass the fair use vs free image (and this beign after fair use and free use was clearly explained). I think the image should be speedily deleted, and the user warned about the legal issues this misrprepresentation creates for Wikipedia. However, I've never done an IfD, and some guidance would be helpful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the conversation for the deletion of this image/video...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleur_de_Sel_2007_dt.jpg

...can't be found on the "Images and media for deletion" project page. It may be from as far back as August. Is that why it can't be found now? If so, why is the graphic still there? Would love to see the conversation since this relates to a video (didn't know this was possible on Wikipedia) and offer a suggestion! Thanks for any insight you can provide. Maltiti2005 02:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the image "Image:Neptune rings PIA02224.jpg" exists on commons at "Image:PIA02224-browse.jpg". 84.228.111.107 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of images (WARNING: UNPLEASANT IMAGE and Safe image) that have a source listed, but the source doesn't point to the image. How should these be dealt with? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't an image be speedily deleted by uploader request? Simply south (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They can be. WP:CSD#G7. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just uploaded another one and gave it the wrong name. Simply south (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_7#Image:DW_Fear_Her.jpg had been closed as a complaint was made that it was diruptive, this complaint has since been withdrawn, does one resubmit the ifD, or reopen it? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One lets it go, and quits beating a dead horse. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have returned from my extended wikibreak and I plan to resume running BJBot in its IFD relisting role. It will relist images tagged with {{ifd}} but that have never been listed for IFD or haven't been listed in the last 20 days. It will also inform the user that placed the IFD tag that it has been listed. If anybody has any objections or other concerns please tell me. BJ^Talk 11:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is goes! I rewrote a large part of it to clean up the code so some bugs might have slipped through. It hasn't been run in quite a while so it is going to add a huge amount of new IfDs to the current page. BJ^Talk 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas admins! /me runs BJ^Talk 10:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been putting together a list of precedents for IFD closing decisions. User:Quadell/ifd precedents. I find it useful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote/66. There is a question of whether fair-use images are appropriate in space on the project other than main-article-space, specifically, in Wikipedia:Portals. At Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote/66, two editors are in agreement that fair-use images are not appropriate in Portal-space on the project, but are generally only appropriate in main-space-articles dealing with the subject matter. However, there is an Admin that claims that non-free images can be displayed in the Portal-space on the project under current Wikipedia fair-use policies. Perhaps it is simply a matter that this particular Admin is somehow unfamiliar with Wikipedia's image policies regarding fair-use images on the project, strange as that may seem. Could one or two other Admins more familiar with image fair-use policies on Wikipedia comment about this troubling issue at Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote/66 ? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

• Update: Betacommand (talk · contribs) has weighed in helpfully at Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote/66. I would still appreciate feedback at Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote/66 from another Admin knowledgeable with image policies, to confirm what Betacommand (talk · contribs) said (which I happen to agree with). Cirt (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

The guidelines say "Images that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead." But what if the page exists here? Should we use the IfD or MfD procedure? I always thought image pages that didn't contain media should be speedied, but I guess even these can be contested, so where should they be listed? Rocket000 (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List it for speedy deletion using {{Db-noimage}}. Exception is if the image page contains usefull project spesific categories, templates or simmilar that doesn't belong on Commons. --Sherool (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I normally do, I just wonder what I should do when it's contested. (I'm talking about totally blank pages except for being categorized.) Rocket000 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify for speedy deletion then. -Nard 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...Exactly ...lol. Why is it impossible to get any answers around here? Rocket000 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again with a little emphasis: "Should we use the IfD or MfD procedure? I always thought image pages that didn't contain media should be speedied, but I guess even these can be contested, so where should they be listed?" Is it really that hard to understand me? :) Rocket000 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd use MfD, although in reality I'd just let it be. Why would you be hatin' on categorizing images? -Nard 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for my delayed response). I'm not sure why I'm hatin' on categorizing images we don't have. I guess it's out of excessive tidiness. Having a image page with out an image also may causes problems with users editing the page thinking it's the real description page. We should keep all that info. tied to the actual image. But I did learn recently, sometimes there's a good reason to keep these pages - to prevent new uploads under that name or to prevent local vandalism. So I guess I'll put my unexplained desire to delete these pages aside. :) Rocket000 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that a number of images uploaded by User:Benfeing (see this list) have dubious copyright status. A number of them seem to be certified "self-made" with no further information. Several of the images are clearly taken from websites eg JohnGore.com. Could an admin or user with a better grasp than me of how to tag and deal with these multiple images please take a look? Many thanks Dick G (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One of those photoshopped nude images of Daniel Radcliffe has been uploaded (Image:Potter2.jpg). While it certainly deserves deletion, I am hesitant to do it, as image policy is not my strong suit. What should be done in this situation? It seems to me a blatant copyright infringement, and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Is this right? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of, thanks. :-) faithless (^speak) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some users like User:Akira-otomo have littered their userpages with useless vanity images that no one else could ever possibly have a use for, like Image:Akira-otomos profile proper.jpg and Image:Akira-Otomo's Posting.jpg. What is the policy on these? -Amake (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd get rid of Image:My Wikipedia.png this one too. -Amake (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I Protest: If they want to use the images for their own userpages, and that's that, and if the images are under their copyright, then why not let them have it? It's really none of your beeswax what they do on their userpages.

Let's say there's a "User:Goggles-Stapler". User:Goggles-Stapler does not have the right to write "I'm a box of suede and leather gloves" 50 billion times over - or at all - in another user's userpage/talkpage, or any of the articles or policy-pages in Wikipedia, but if he wanted to do that on his own userpage, he should be allowed. It's none of your concern what a user does to their own userpage; it is about the only thing in Wikipedia that is entirely their property. Amake, I would not change your userpage's appearance unless I was reverting vandalism I happened to notice had been commited there, and I would expect you to follow that same principal with me. I say this to all users in Wikipedia, and any other wikia or wiki-related site which I have contributed to in the past under this account name.

But the point I'm getting at is this: User:Goggles-Stapler may also upload an image he has created or holds copyright to, of anything in particular, if he wants to. It may be preferred that he upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, but I think he could upload it anywhere if he could legally say it was under a free-use license. He has merely uploaded it to decorate his userpage with, and if someone else decides they'd like to use it for something, then he doesn't mind; he uploaded it as free use.

By coincidence, there may be a User:Goggles-Stapler out there, somewhere, in this Wikipedia or another, or a different sort of wiki-site. I can't answer for that. But in my mind he exists solely to represent all of the users who upload what you call "Useless-Vanity images" just for the sake of decorating their userpages, and maybe even their talkpages. It is alright for them to do that. End of story. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC) End of protest

Yes, I appreciate that. But a) it's not even remotely encyclopedic, and b) Wikipedia is not Flickr or Myspace. Vanity pictures like this are a waste of server space. I don't care what anyone does on their own user page, but they don't need to fill up the servers with nonsense like this. -Amake (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why not suggest to them that they re-upload the images to Wikimedia Commons? If they own the copyrights to the images, then it'll be allowed. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I had tagged the above for speedy deletion under CSD#I9, yet it has languished in Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion for several hours now, making me wonder whether I've misapplied the criterion. Ought I to list it here instead? --Diagonal P. (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, due to one of our templates being broken by the switch to the new pre-processsor, a large number of ProteinBoxBot uploads now appear as orphans - see discussion at User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#ProteinBoxBot.27s_uploads and an example at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_27#Image:PBB_GE_NIPA1_gnf1h07157_at_fs.png. This s temporary problem and should be fixed reasonably soon, please bear with us while we correct this. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Image:Cobalt 06.jpg was uploaded with commercial reasons in mind. The image summary probably provides the contact info for those interested to buy. Also, some copyright and other info (of which I don't understand) were printed on the image. Is this kind of image posting acceptable for Wikipedia? 66.57.254.101 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please clarify the following: There is an 84 year old original photograph of a famous person which is in a museum collection. Somebody claims they took a photograph of this photograph 15 years ago (and can prove it). But they sold this photograph of the original photograph to somebody a year ago, who now claims to be the copyright holder of the copy. Q. How to deal with it in WP in a way that keeps everybody happy. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently moved the closing procedures to WP:DELPRO#IFD and adjusted the page to the step by step process used there. However, in the process I noticed that closers here are transcluding the {{ifd top}} and {{ifd bottom}} templates, contrary to the template documentation. If changes to the template are made, it will show on prior IfD closings. I discovered this in part when I made a change to the templates to add language in most of the other closing templates. Is there a reason we are transcluding them here when the documentation says to subst?

Additionally, closing instructions say (and have said, I didn't change the substance just the location and the layout) the template should be placed below the discussion section header, otherwise the top template will actually show if someone edits the discussion above. AfD and MfD do this differently because the entire discussion has its own page. Is there a reason we've been doing it differently here?

The closing instructions said {{oldifdfull}} should be subst. I've changed that.

A couple of suggestions: 1) I could simply revert all the changes to the template and we could change the documentation to say it is not to be subst, but I'm not sure that's really that prudent. 2) I could copy the current template to a new template, revert the changes on the old one and we could deprecate the old one in favor of the new one, which we would always subst., or 3) either way we need to clarify whether the template goes below the header as in the ifd closing instructions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, another option is that we keep the changes and don't worry about the affect on prior transcluded templates. I don't really like that option though. Sorry for the inconvenience, I never thought that the closings here would vary so greatly from the documentation and closing instructions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On further review, this appears to be no problem. I've reviewed the archives and note that so few discussions result in an actual discussion there is usually no blocking of the discussion as closed. The recent change have very little effect as the result is fairly obvious from the color of the link. Still no idea why these are being transcluded in the first place, or how the actual instructions should read, but it may not really be of any practical concern. If anyone has a problem with the added phrase and result parameter in the template, let me know or feel free to nix it. Sorry for the trouble.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that in Image:Annie 167x250.jpg the uploader claims to be the copyright holder, but in the comments the uploader writes "URL:http://annieloydforcongress.net/content/images/stories/photos/Annie%20167x250.jpg Annie Loyd gave me permission to post this picture of her". What does one do with that? =Axlq 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they're saying that she gave them the copyright when she gave them that permission? Look at all the optional public domain image licenses and replace the "I'm the copyright holder, and I say it can go to the public domain" such-as-the-like license with the most appropriate one. And there you go! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think this was worth proposing for deletion, that's why I asked here. A picture of a political candidate, obtained from that candidate's web site, should have its copyright transferred without some sort of notice, no? I don't see a license that says "I'm not the copyright holder, but the copyright holder gave me permission to post this here." I'm not sure how to fix things in this case. I'd like to advise the uploader appropriately, but I don't know what to advise. =Axlq 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would start with a personal note to the uploader. If that doesn't get a satisfactory response, probably the best thing to do would be to tag it with {{imagevio|url}} and add it to the bottom of WP:Copyright problems as instructed on the template and the copyright problems page, indicate your specific concern so editors processing there can understand the issue, and post the standardized message on the uploader's page, again a personal note would be a nice addition.

If you are trying to help the uploader solve the problem, the very best solution would be for Annie Loyd for Congress to post a release of the copyright for that photo on their website, either into the public domain or under the GFDL or an appropriate Creative Commons license (if a Creative Commons license the photo would of course need to be uploaded again, this time to Commons, etc. etc.). Option 2, remove the Public Domain license tag and add an appropriate fair use tag. There is a tag {{withpermission}}, but it can only be used with another fair use tag. In order to avoid someone else doing something in the interim, you may want to go with the fair use option until you can get a response from the campaign HQ.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if Image:M1117GuardianPencil.jpg has sufficient quality? 70.51.8.110 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sufficient quality? for what? to show what one looks like? Absent something better, sure. Relevancy is more important that quality. It is on Commons, so this really isn't an issue for IFD. The article talk page already requests a photo. If someone comes up with one, great, if not, this is fine.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely there has been some discussion at some point concerning imposing a "sunset rule" (cf Sunset law), by which uploaded images that are orphaned, that is have not been used on any page, including Userpages, are automatically deleted after a period of, say, two years. If this has never been suggested, where would a normal, unprivileged Wikipedian editor introduce the idea? --Wetman (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be extremely difficult to implement since I am not aware of any way to track when something was last used unless you know all of the places it was used. In other words, I can look on the article Puffin and see from page history when a particular image was place on the page or was removed, but I can't go to one of those pictures and see anything other than where it is used right now. So for any given picture you'd have no way to determine whether it had just become an orphan or had been one since the project started! You could tag orphans but someone, or a bot, would have to remove the tags if the images were used.

I'm not sure why it would be necessary anyway. If the image is not a free image (i.e. it is here as under fair-use) then it can be speedy deleted under criterion I5 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Otherwise, nominate it for discussion on this project page as that's what this page is here for.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I need an admin here. So you can't really start to write an article, because it doesn't meet the formating standards, even if nobody has written it and you're poking along really slow. Someone will delete it within seconds of the first save. So some admins friendlily suggested that I go make my own own sandbox and plug along at my own pace. Hurray! So I do this and I start to make the article and I clumsily go along and ask people questions, and I've added a photo or two, just to mainly see how it works, I don't have the correct licence squared away yet, (there is like 30 options, each requiring you to read like a full detailed page, etc) and before I can play with it, somebody has deleted it! Can't they lay off or something, if it's only linked to my own personal sandbox? It's not graphic, or copyrighted, but I just haven't selected the right image licence. Now, if I can't use the public sandbox (it gets wiped ever few hours) and I can't use my personal sandbox (because of trolling people who like to delete stuff) like... um... where CAN I actually do what the sandbox is advertised to do? If the image is not offensive or obviously stolen, just my own pic, and only linked to USER/Sandbox and the licence isn't' perfect, can't they lay off? I mean isn't that the point of the sandbox? help! -Frankburnz (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see either the sandbox or the picture in your deleted contributions. Did you create a new account to ask this question? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading and understanding Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags before starting your editing so that you select, source and tag your images properly. That way your images will not get deleted. There is no sense in working on your article and formatting it using images that will be deleted any way. Any image that is uploaded to Wikipedia and not properly sourced and tagged can be a copyright violation and illegal. -Nv8200p talk 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is freely licensed content being deleted under the guise of "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic"? This is despite the fact that a) it's not always orphaned, and b) it's sometimes encyclopedic! If anything, this content should be being moved over to the Commons, not simply deleted. I first noted this on Image:GroupPhoto2007.01.14.004.JPG, which was in use on South Pole Telescope at the time. As it was a photo of the team behind the telescope, I'd argue that it was encyclopaedic. It was licensed under GFDL, so there were no licensing issues. It was deleted without any notification being placed on the talk page of the article (although a message was left on the original uploader's talk page). It was also nominated, deleted and instances removed by a single user, Nv8200p (talk · contribs). I'm assuming good faith, but it seems wrong that only one person is behind the removal of the image: the person deleting the image should be different than the person that nominated it.

I would suggest that a standard rule is introduced whereby freely licensed content with no problems other than being counted as "orphaned" and/or "unencyclopaedic" should simply be moved to the Commons, rather than discussed here. Mike Peel (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for deletion on this image was actually "Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader" although most of the nominations are "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic". There was no discussion on the image so it was deleted. The mistake was that the caption of the image was not tagged with an "ifdc" tag to let others reader know of the pending deletion and invite comment. The image has been restored and the nomination withdrawn.

In general 99% of the images nominated at WP:IFD are crap. Yes, they are free, but they are crap - images of unknown garage bands, people flipping the bird, logos of non-notable companies, lots of penis pictures, people's pets and faces of long absent users. We do not need to clog the Commons with this crap. Any good stuff that is orphaned is generally moved to the Commons after the IFD review. I oppose a "standard rule" that any freely licensed content be moved to the Commons. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm; after browsing through some of the nominations, I'm inclined to agree with you. It would be good if there was some extra checking going on, though, to make sure that images like this one don't get deleted. Would it be worth modifying the IFD pages such that they display the images, to make it easier to browse them? (Otherwise there's a whole load of links to click on...) I know that Category:Images and media for deletion exists, but that doesn't display them chronologically, which I think is needed here. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried a test at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_April_10 and I like having a thumbnail image included on the IFD. This will cause extra work on the servers no doubt. Deletion of a good image through IFD does not happen that often, maybe 1 to 2% of the time (less, if the IFD process is followed properly), and can be corrected fairly easily so I don't know if it is worth it, but I support the idea. -Nv8200p talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks good; it makes it much easier to scan through quickly. I seem to recall seeing a page that said not to worry about the computing resources used, but I can't find it right now. It may not look as nice when the images are deleted, but I don't think that's really an issue. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the concept. It's always been difficult to review the IFD noms and with the vast quantity of crap (last I knew there were something like 100,000+ orphaned images - and I haven't had any trouble finding plenty when I had time today), most editors who participate here are making nominations.

The problem is that at least one image in the trial is a fair use image, and it violates some rule that I should go look up to display a fair use image on a page other than the article about the subject of the image. If a user has pop-ups enabled, then they can hover over the image links and see a preview of the image without clicking through each link. ~ BigrTex 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a part of fair use that allows for the reviewing and commenting upon fair use images? That may be intended to be a different version of reviewing (i.e. reviewing the work rather than reviewing the image), but it may still apply here. But then, IANAL. An alternative would be to have two templates for nominating for deletion, one of which works as it does at present and would be intended for use with fair use images, the other of which adds the gallery. Although I would agree that that isn't as elegant / easy to use as having just one template. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines, a proposed guideline I have created. What I would ask the people here is whether WP:IfD is suitable for the periodic lengthy discussions seen over certain images, or whether a centralised area specifically for controversial images would be helpful (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find the nomination in the archives, and am unsure how to find the log for a deleted image, so as to revisit the subject again. Why was no mention made of the image's pending deletion noted in article discussion. It's the placeholder image for the article, so i am thinking that a serious breakdown in communication occurred along the way. Help? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've altered the section Listing images and media for deletion to reflect how it is vital for editors seeking to remove an image must notify not just the initial uploader (who might not be with the Project any longer) but the discussion pages of those articles using the image as well. This might seem like a tedious expansion of work for the nominator to have to notify the discussion page of the article using that image (especially if the image is present in numerous articles), but the tedium would actually reside in having every one of the users active in those articles posting to have the removal undone and ensuing discussion. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the fair use rationale of an image is disputed (here or elsewhere), and the discussion results as "no consensus", should the image be kept (no consensus defaults to keep in XfDs) or should it be deleted (no consensus for the fair use of the image, meaning that it shouldn't be used)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions on the front say that nominators must give "due notice" by leaving a notice of the pending deletion with the uploading. Shouldn't it also require notice be left on the talk pages of articles where images are used? Not all of the contributers to an article will be the uploader, and those contributors may be able to address issues with regards to fair use, or repurpose the image in a more appropriate fashion in another related article. Right now, most contributors find out about a deletion discussion after the image has been deleted, seemingly without notice at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In many cases, the uploader may not even be participating in Wikipedia at the time the notice is delivered, and it's not standard for people to put every image from every article they're interested in on their watch lists. --Masamage ♫ 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Does a bot not handle that? If not, it would be a good idea. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

July 13-19th all have (or most have) outstanding IfDs to be closed, but they're not being listed. ANyone know why? WilyD 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For all those interested, I have made a proposal to disable hotlinking on all Wikimedia projects. Please join the discussion at Meta. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to create a template (I don't think one already exists) that is like {{prod}} for unused images on WP. There are so many crap images like Image:Bootytouch.jpg laying around that it would be more effective to just have a category that editors can browse of deletion candidates, not because they violate any policy, but just because they are useless. If someone thinks that the image is not useless, they remove the prod. Again, this would only be for free images that are not currently used. Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this has come up a few times, and each time the consensus has been "don't fix what ain't broke". I just nominated that image for deletion, but because nobody is likely to stumble upon unused images, a PROD-like system has no real benefits. Not everyone checks their watchlist on a regular basis, so a message on the talk page is more likely to reach them faster. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The obvious benefit would be that images would be listed in a gallery category. It would simply be limited to free images that are not currently used, under the criteria that they are very low quality and unlikely to be useful (which is what many of the IfD images are). Such a thing would greatly ease nominating the many MySpace type images that clog our categories,[7] but it would also greatly help reviewing candidates, as you wouldn't have to click on every link to see the picture. I don't really feel that an image deletion process based on quality (versus policy) is fair unless the image is at least thumbnailed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newb to image deletion, and have no idea how bad something has to be before it would be deleted. I have seen images that aren't great, are pretty poor, and are absolute rubbish, and Image:Cheetah in park.jpg falls somewhere in the middle. Would this be a suitable candidate for deletion? I'm trying to move the images of cheetahs to Commons, but I'm doubtful whether this one will be wanted there given how blurred it is (it looks to be as much like a leopard, though it's hard to tell). Richard001 (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would start at Talk:Pilikula Nisargadhama first (where the image is included) and if nobody has an objection to removing it there, then you can nominate it for deletion on the grounds of it being orphaned. If it's freely licensed, then there are no real grounds for its deletion if it's being used. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that talk page is pretty much never going to receive much attention - it doesn't have a single comment on it. I could remove it from the article, but I would only be doing that on the basis that it's not of high enough quality, which is what my argument was in the first place. Maybe I'll ask the uploader about it. Richard001 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would just nom it for deletion. Yeah, that image is just way horrible and is kind of an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. howcheng {chat} 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed renaming WikiProject Graphics to WikiProject Images and Media. The project was created a few months back as a "top-level" project for Image concerns on Wikipedia. It went inactive shortly after, which I feel is likely due to lack of attention. I figure a slightly more intuitive name and a broadening of the scope would make this in to a very useful top-level project, as image and media efforts are very scattered right now. Please weigh in on the talk page with regards to the rename. Also, if you feel that such a project could (at some point) be useful, feel free to join! Cheers ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good rename. Graphics is a vague term and Wikipedia uses the term "images and media" to cover everything that WikiProject is designed to cover. -- Suntag ☼ 16:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that, often, there is no note on the talk page of an article to indicate that the image is under discussion here, contrary to the instructions on listing. If we can't rely on the instructions being followed we need a bot for this - does anyone watchlisting this page know of a bot that used to do this ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As I read step 3 of Wikipedia:IMFD#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion, the article or the article talk page may be tagged with a notice, but neither is required as part of "due notice." In other words, the failure to tag the talk page of an article or the article page with an IMFD notice is not a basis to undelete a deleted image. -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Category:Images made obsolete by a PNG version. Most of these are orphaned images with exact replicas in PNG format. Ripe for deletin'. Now, I could start dumping them onto IFD, but I'd like to do this efficiently - with a SD template. Unfortunately, the "redundant" criterion for image SD is defined as "Any image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution". I get caught by the "file format" part - I have orphaned JPGs and GIFs replaced by PNGs (a raster image replaced with another raster image). Now, if there is no room for flexibility, I'm happy to start filling the IFD lists. But I'd like to avoid putting a burden on IFD if I can. --JaGa^talk 00:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Post a note on the speedy delete talk page and find out the basis behind "in the same file format". My guess is that they don't want PNGs being SD replaced by JPGs and there is debate as to which format is better. And if there is a debate, speedy delete isn't appropriate. I'm not sure where the JPG-PNG debate is now, but I'm sure someone will be pissed if JPGs are delete outright in favor of PNGs. -- Suntag ☼ 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Graphic Depiction.jpg is an unused, almost non existent image. Looking at the uploader's talk page, I'm not able to determine a purpose for the image. If someone knows how to handle the situation, please do so. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 15:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd SD template it under the Image/Media criteria I2: Corrupt or empty image. --JaGa^talk 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be quite the backlog. Can any admin go through and delete the proposed ones if they feel the rationale is valid? I'd like to help clear out this long backlog. --AW (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As WP:CP no longer handles images, I have revised the instructions here to direct user to WP:CSD for blatant cases and WP:PUI for non-blatant. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposed new guideline at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion gathering together image deletion processes currently spread through other pages. Please provide feedback if interested. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What do those who consistently participate in IFD feel about me creating a bot to do the following:

1. (One Time Run)Close all past ifd's those image is deleted.
2. (One Time Run)Relist all unclosed ifd's to today.
3. (Continuous)Relist all unclosed ifd's from the previous day, to the current day.
4. (Continuous)Close ifd's those image has already been deleted (or speeded outside of ifd).

I think this would take care of the majority of the back log and allow administrators to see what the actual back log of images needing deleted or closed really is. As well, it will help keep everyone on the same track many images are speedied outside of IFD. I started to close already deleted ifds... but taking a quick look back in time, I do not think that task will be completed without assistance from a bot. I would love to develop this bot, but would love to hear what anyone else thinks (and gather consensus for this bot) before moving forward. This would be for maintenance purposes only, no admin rights needed. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 07:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of issues I see from your proposal (which I have numbered for reference). Generally the discussions are not formally closed (use of ifd top and bottom templates) when there has been no objection or discussion about a nomination, so task 1 really is not needed. With numbers 2 and 3, it is important to note that things are listed for a minimum of 5 days before deletion from the IfD so it would be confusing and totally change the process to move unclosed to the current date. With number 4, I don't have a major issue with this and think it might be useful but by no means nessesary (at a maximum, I would say only going forward, not back in time) -- if someone wanted to know why an image was deleted (speedy vs IfD discussion) all they would need to do is look at the deletion log, most admins are very good with providing a rational.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jordan 1972 and thank you for your response. The reason I proposed this is to clear up alot of inconsistencies that exist. Sometimes requests are closed, sometimes they are not... Sometimes IFD from yesterday are moved over, sometimes they are not... It just seems like if process was consistent it would not appear so crazy(ie the majority of the page being red links, cluttered between open requests). If we can decide on what criteria sanctions the roll over of images or not, we could also have it update the "The following discussions are more than 5 days old and are pending processing by an administrator" section, instead of users having to manually count and maintain this. All in all, I am just looking to help and streamline the process to make what needs to be handled by users, clearly available to them and all the nonsense taken care of. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody deleted an image I had used for the page on Variants of Go. The image depicted the starting position of a Tibetan Go Board. I made it myself and had stated so. There was one previous complaint made about the image perhaps over 6 months or a year ago. I addressed that compliant. This time I just logged in and found it was gone. What is going on there? Why can't people ask first before deleting something, is it that difficult?--ZincBelief (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the image? howcheng {chat} 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It used to be this Image:TibetBoard.gif --ZincBelief (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) oh it has been restored!

I see what happened; you initially marked it as being non-free, and thus it was subject to strict scrutiny. Now that the licensing is free, you shouldn't have any further problems with this. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A user has requested a bot to do certain repetitive tasks on this page at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 23#IfD/RfD/etc. discussion closing. Please comment at the BRFA here. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been approved and is now running. Please keep in mind the following:

• The bot runs approximately once per hour, unless it detected broken formatting (see the next point) in the previous run in which case it checks every 5 minutes for someone to have fixed it.
• The bot will get confused if you close a discussion by putting the {{ifd top}} before the section header instead of after (see WP:DPR#IFD). I may later on try to make it smarter about that particular case, but for now it just whines at User talk:AnomieBOT for me (or someone else) to fix it and puts "broken formatting" instead of a count in the Old discussions listing.
• The bot cannot tell if you've decided to keep an image besides looking for {{ifd top}}, so it'll count those discussions in Old discussions until someone closes them.
• If the bot is breaking something, posting any text to User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/IFDCloser will stop it without affecting its other tasks. Please do that instead of blocking it.

Thanks, and I hope you find the bot useful. Anomie⚔ 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've been spending some time reviewing IfD nominations lately, I felt it would be convenient to be able to see thumbnails of the nominated images directly on the IfD page. Of course, we can't really add them directly to the nomination template for a number of reasons, so I decided instead to write a user script to add them after the fact to my view of the page. To anyone else who might find such a feature useful, I hereby present User talk:Ilmari Karonen/ifdthumbnails.js. Have fun! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It does sound useful, but you'd have to be careful about non free images.--Rockfang (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback would be appreciated in the G6 Proposal discussion on the rewording of CSD G6. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)