Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

My question is where {{Oldffdfull}}, and the now-defunct {{Non-free reviewed}} and {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} should be posted now that NFCR is no more and FfD handles both. The Ffd one seems to always be posted on the file's talk page while the NFCR ones seems to have always been posted on the file's description page (sometimes at the top or the page and sometimes below the copyright notice). If there's only a single template, then it's probably makes no difference where it's posted. It might be a little confusing, however, for files tagged with multiple templates for multiple discussions.

For example, File:Czech Republic FA.png was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#File:Czech Republic FA.png in November 2013 and a "Non-free reviewed" template was added to the file's description page here. The same file was also discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Czech Republic FA.png in November 2015 and the "Oldffdfull" template was added to the file's talk page here. The NFCR template is the one that people are going to notice first since that is on the file's page, and not many people will have any reason to check the file's talk page for another template. So, they will assume that the file can be used in Czech Republic national football team, Czech Republic national under-21 football team, Czech Republic women's national football team as well as Football Association of the Czech Republic even though that is contrary to the result of the subsequent FfD discussion.

There's sort of a similar thing currently happening with File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. The file was first discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, only no "non-free reviewed" template was added after the close. The file was discussed again at NFCR in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg (for slightly different reasons), and the close was "no consensus" and the file was tagged with "Non-free reviewed no consensus". The file is now currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg which means an "Oldffdfull" template will be added to the file's talk page after the close. If the "non-free reviewed" for the first NFCR had been added, you'd have three separate templates for three separate discussions with possibly three separate closes for the same file. Something similar could possibly happen for some of the NFCR discussions in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71 tagged with "NFCR no consensus" if someday they are discussed at FfD.

Perhaps its time that the placement, etc. of file related templates be standardized to ensure that they are all posted on the file's talk page. Maybe a Template:Old FfD multi template needs to be created so that all prior NFCR/FfD discussions can be combined for easy reference. I'm not sure what was done prior to the merge when a file was nominated for deletion at FfD multiple times; maybe such a thing never happened since both "keep" and "delete" are quite definitive results. However, since FfD now discusses NFCC issues it seems possible that the same non-free file could possibly be discussed multiple times. Maybe the first time ends in no consensus, so the file is nominated again. Maybe the first time disallowed a particular usage, but the situation has changed and so the consensus has changed as well. Maybe something new is added to the NFCC, as seems to have been the case with "File:Czech Republic FA.png", so that a usage previously allowed is no longer considered acceptable. There seem to be may other possibilities which might lead to the same file being discussed again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• All on the talk page in my opinion. This isn't as useless as the normal proposals to move stuff there, because in this case, we already have stuff there and it should go together. I'm sure we could find a bot operator to move them all over for us. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• For practical purposes, I think that the FFD and the NFCR templates should be placed next to each other if the same file has been discussed at both venues. Otherwise, people risk missing the other discussion and there is then a risk that people try to enforce an obsolete closure.

At some point, I think that there was a recommendation on some page that {{oldffdfull}} should be placed on the talk page if the talk page already exists for some reason (e.g. because of a wikiproject template) but at the top of the file information page if the talk page doesn't already exist. At the same time, I think that another page somewhere on Wikipedia which recommended the admin to put the {{oldffdfull}} template on the talk page in all situations regardless of whether the talk page already exists. I can't remember where I found the conflicting recommendations, but I've noticed that admin use of the template is a bit inconsistent: some admins put it on the talk page and some admins put it on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A discussion relevant to Files for Discussion is currently ongoing at the village pump. The topic is Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, a user has continued to remove the file File:BBC First.png from the article BBC First (Australia), giving reasons on my talk page including "specific non-free use rationale is needed for each usage" but suggesting if I were to write one for usage on this particular article, it would almost certainly fail anyway. While the file has the licence of {{Non-free logo}} its Commons entry uses both {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. I'm unsure how best to proceed, as clearly it should be acceptable for the logo to be used in the article in the infobox. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the file from "BBC First (Australian)" per WP:NFCCE because it doesn't have the non-free use rationale for that particular usage required by WP:NFCC#10c. It was re-added by Whats new?, but it still was missing the required non-free usage rationale so I removed it again. I then explained why in a little more detail at their user talk. I think the logo might be simple enough for "PD-USonly", but not sure about "PD-logo" because the logo seems to originate in the UK where the threshold of originality is lower. If this can be converted to a free license, then it will not be subject to WP:NFCC and can be used pretty much as desired. If not, then a valid non-free use rationale needs to be provided for "BBC First (Australia)" in addition to the one already provided for BBC First. I didn't write one myself because I don't think such a usage can be justified per WP:NFCC#3 (more specifically No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI). In previous FFD/NFCR discussions about the usage of similar logos, usage has generally been considered OK for the article about the parent organization, but not for any of its sub-entities. If Whats new? wants to use the image in a particular article, then the burden is on them to provide the necessary rationale. If they had added such a rationale, I wouldn't have removed the image, but would've brought it to FFD instead. Finally, if the same file exists on Commons and the Commons licensing is acceptable, then there's no reason for a non-free version per WP:NFCC#1. The Commons file should be used and the non-free deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Commons image is free, there's no question it would be anything but free. I have CSD'd the version here, so that the commons version should populate (its the same name), and its use would be allowable on the BBC First Aussie article. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. @Whats new?: There's no need for a non-free file to be used if the same file is available on Commons. If you are aware of any more like this and you feel the licensing is accurate, just replace the non-free ones with the free ones and tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:F8 or just leave it an orphan and an admin will eventually delete per WP:F5. For reference, if I had known about the Commons version I would have replaced the non-free myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Masem and Marchjuly: Thanks for clarifying. I didn't notice the difference in licencing between the Commons version and Wikipedia until it was pointed out. Rather confusing! -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. The same name was used for both files so I think Wikipedia automatically chooses the local file. Once the local file was deleted, Wikipedia went with the Commins file. Same name stuff happens every now and then, and can be hard to notice if you're not really looking for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I recently made some additions to the closing instructions to help better encapsulate the new functionality of FFD including setting an expectation that a closing administration closing a discussion to anything other than delete or keep has an understanding of copyright laws to make sure that consensus does not obviously contradict the laws. I also added instructions about how to relist discussions. Feel free to add anything else which I may have not added. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The template syntax is described on multiple pages: {{ffd|log=2024 June 2}}. However, it seems that the date is cached and that you sometimes see the wrong date. For example, if I go to {{ffd}} and check the documentation on that page, then I see today's date when I'm logged in, but yesterday's date when I'm logged out. This is confusing and could result in wrong dates being added to the template, in particular when the template is added by an IP.

I have made an attempt to automatically return a dated template by substituting the template. If you use {{subst:ffd/sandbox}}, then this automatically returns a dated sandbox template. Is there any opposition against including this feature in the main template? The documentation could then be changed to recommend substitution, and we then do not need to worry about cached copies of pages which do not show the current date. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: Makes sense, but are you sure this change will not break Twinkle? It seems like it will since the change will require that the template be substituted when it currently isn't. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It won't change any existing features but just add a new feature: substitution will result in a date being inserted automatically. You can still follow the old procedure if you wish, so I'd assume that Twinkle would be unaffected, but we could always ask for confirmation on WT:TW. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Stefan2:I would ask at village pump technical to get a better understanding of why this is happening before you try to change templates to get around it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • For practical purposes, Mediawiki caches many pages so that the page doesn't need to be re-generated the next time someone views the page, thereby saving server resources. If the page content changes without the page being edited, this means that some users, and in particular IPs, see outdated information for a short period. Here we are seeing this in the form of outdated dates. It won't happen on the page WP:FFD since AnomieBOT edits that page every day and therefore forces the page to be re-generated, but {{ffd}}, {{ffd/doc}} and {{ffD doc}} are not edited as often as WP:FFD and the templates are therefore more likely to show outdated data. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If you list a file on FFD using Twinkle, then Twinkle removes everything else from the discussion page. See the history of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 11: this has happened several times today. If someone lists a file using Twinkle, remember to fix the page after this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Per this discussion, consensus has been formed to merge Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files into Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Here's my high-level idea for the immediate steps to merge WP:PUF into WP:FFD and the order which these steps should be taken:

1. Update the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading to accommodate WP:PUF
2. Update Twinkle so that it no longer lists WP:PUF as an option for "File:" discussions while updating the FFD option to explain that FFD is now used for PUF discussions (Pinging This, that and the other and MusikAnimal regarding this.)
3. Have AnomieBOT stop creating WP:PUF daily subpages; the rest of AnomieBOT's functions on PUF should probably remain active until all discussions at PUF are closed (Pinging Anomie regarding this.)

...In all honesty, this merge will most likely not be as complicated as the WP:NFCR merge to FFD since no page was/will be renamed as a result of the merge consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Oiyarbepsy since they seem to have already started edits on this merge. By the way, it looks as though AnomieBOT has now been set up to no longer create daily subpages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• User:Steel1943, looks like User:Legobot actually runs PUF, not Anomie. Or maybe it's both. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: To me, it looks like AnomieBOT:

1. Handles daily subpage creation (Apparently, this task has now been shut down)
2. Closing discussions for deleted pages and
3. Removing daily subpage links for pages more than 7 days old from the "holding cell" when all of the page's discussions are closed

However, It looks like Legobot only:

1. Adds pages as links to the "holding cell" after the discussion page is more than 7 days old

...Meaning Legobot's function on the page should automatically cease in time since the daily subpages are no longer being created by AnomieBOT. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• The next step must be to remove PUF from Twinkle and User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. As long as those tools allow users to send files to PUF, some users will do this, and it would just cause unnecessary confusion to forcibly close or move discussions to FFD as the original links in talk page notifications won't work. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Also, DumbBOT should stop creating daily subcategories of Category:Wikipedia possibly unfree files; see User talk:DumbBOT#PUF categories. Category:Possibly unfree files from 2016 April 10, Category:Possibly unfree files from 2016 April 11, and Category:Possibly unfree files from 2016 April 12 should all be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Those categories will all end up in CAT:CSD after the date in the category if no one lists a file on PUF on those dates, so you do not need to worry about deletion of dated categories, although the bot should stop creating new ones. I think that we should keep the categories until the deletion nomination tools (Tinkle etc.) have been updated in case someone using a tool submits a file to PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• @GeoffreyT2000, Stefan2, and Oiyarbepsy: Having DumbBOT stop creating those categories may take a while, mainly since the bot's operator, Tizio, last edited 8 months ago. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a big problem, I think. If no one lists a file on PUF, the dated category will just appear in CAT:CSD shortly after the date in the category name because empty PUF categories automatically nominate themselves for speedy deletion per WP:G6. It will create some extra work for admins who wish to delete such categories, but it won't disrupt the project too much. If it is possible to contact the bot's operator, it should of course be arranged so that the bot stops creating these categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Affected templates

PUF uses a lot of templates which need to be taken care of:

• {{Puf2}}, {{puf2a}}, {{Puf2 preload}} and {{fdw-puf}} should always be substituted and should not be used in the future. They have been listed at TFD.
• {{Puf}} and {{pufc}} are not to be substituted and shouldn't be deleted or modified until all discussions have been closed.
• {{Possibly unfree files subcategory starter}} is used for creating new daily categories. It could maybe be changed to automatically nominate new pages for immediate speedy deletion until the bot operator can stop creation of new dated categories. Once the bot operator stops creating new dated categories, it should probably be deleted.
• {{Puf log}} is used to insert text at the top of the page. AnomieBOT inserts it on top of pages if a page is missing the header, and the bot used to insert the template on new dated categories too. I suggest keeping the template as long as there are still open requests.
• {{Puf top}} and {{puf bottom}} are added to closed discussions and must remain available until all discussions have closed. Not sure what to do with the templates after that. The templates are always to be substituted, so we can probably delete them when the last PUF discussion has closed.

Are there other templates to take care of? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Turns out that {{Pufc}} has several bad transclusions back from 2008–09. I've already fixed about 100 of them. There are still about 25 transclusions with obvious date issues. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess that admins who close discussions as 'keep' do not necessarily check if there is a tag which needs to be removed. A good reason for getting rid of the tags, I suppose. I think that article talk page notifications would be better than adding something to image captions, and article talk page notifications could also be automated. {{Ffdc}} and {{pufc}} tend not to be used as Twinkle doesn't add the templates automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• A lot of them were actually on file links to deleted images where the link wasn't removed, so neither was the {{Pufc}} transclusion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion on a possible entry for FFD (once PUF is wholly closed) is here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Template:Wrong license might have slipped through the cracks during the clean up related to the PUF/FFD merge. If it's just a question of fixing the link/updating the text so that the target page in FFD, then I should be able to do that. However, I've never edited a "maintenance template" like this before so I'm not sure if there's more involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• For now, I made this change. I currently have no opinion if more needs to be done. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I changed it a bit. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and Stefan2: Thank you both for taking a look and revising the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

So I'd help with the backlog if I didn't have to manually paste the templates. Does anyone have a working FfD tool? Mine's dead czar 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

New script for testing: User:Evad37/FFDcloser.js. See its talk page for discussions and bug reporting czar 19:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the commons themes I see in the backlog are discussions with a consensus to "convert to non-free", as in they need a FUR. I imagine that these are being held up because it would require the closer or someone to update the image's tags. Does this fall on the closer? Because it's holding up discussion processing. If instead we had a tag or instructions to close as "missing FUR" (read: some form of delayed speedy F6), we would get through these a lot faster. czar 20:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all this falls on the closer because no one rarely does it. Do you want to suggest a holding pen of sorts like CFD has? That would make closing these much faster if the closing admin doesn't have a pile of excess work to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Following up to this COI page discussion, basically there's concerns about the usage of the Commons file File:Ihs-logo.svg. Is there a place to discuss the usage of Commons files? I created a listing at WP:FFD at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_July_10#File:Ihs-logo.svg but it seems like it's considered outside of its scope. Should FFD handle dispute about the usage of images that are hosted on Commons? Else, should it be handled as a content dispute on a page-by-page basis? Alternatively, we could host an RFC on the file image's talk page or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a requested move going on at Template talk:Cfd-notify involving moving the template Template:fdw (and other such templates). Pppery (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there delsort templates specifically designed for FFD? Would it be problematic to use those designed for AFD if there are not? Right now, there are templates for the file's page, the uploader's page, image captions, but there does not seem to be anything specifically for the top of the articles where the files being discussed are being used. It does say in the FFD instructions that "consider (...) adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion", but this seems optional and probably not followed through very much (I hardly go this far). Maybe if there was some template to add to the article which was part of the ffd2 template (prehaps as |article= or something) or a delsort template which would add the discussion to a WikiProject's deletion sorting page, it might get more editors involved in the discussion and help eliminate concerns that decisions are being made by a few who do not necessarily represent the views of the community. It also might help reduce the number of "I didn't know" and "It's unfair" comments that often pop up when somebody tries to re-add a file previously removed as a result of FFD. The number of files being discussed has increased due to the recent merges of NFCR and PUF into FFD. On some days there may be only a few discussions going on, but on others there may be well over a 100. Not all of the files being discussed are being used in articles, but many are so it might help establish a consensus more quickly and reduce the backload if more people are involved. Of course, the consensus should still be based on relevant policy so maybe a guide like WP:ATA could be created which is specific to files. How to treat files not tagged with a WikiProject banner and files whose WikiProjects do not have a delsort template would also have to be figured out, but that can be done through discussion. I've linked this discussion at WT:DELSORT, but I am also interested in how regular participants, including any admins who close FFD discussions, feel about something like this. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The end result you think will happen will actually not since the files' nominations are on daily subpages and not their own dedicated subpages. These categories would throw the entire daily subpage into the category instead of the file nomination. That, and in my opinion, what we probably need here are more closing admins, especially since a lot of the backlog consists of rather quick "delete" closes. Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things Steel1943. I wasn't completely sure how those tags worked, but now see your point. Is there some way to tweak the ffd2 template (perhaps by adding |article= or |wikiproject= to it) so that templates can be added to articles/article talk pages or the relevant WikiProjects page. I understand notifications can be added manually, but those are optional and adding them doesn't seem to be common practice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm not sure about that since that would put the actual file page in a category and not a subpage of WP:FFD. I don't think that any other WP:XFD board tags categorizes the nominated pages themselves in such a way. That idea has some merit, but doing so may need to be further discussed elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly and Steel1943, I think the better (automated) way to handle this is to tag the project's images with the WikiProject banner. Then they'll show up in the project's Wikipedia:Article alerts. No extra work czar 20:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response Czar. If that works, then that would be an easy solution. I am assuming that files should belong to the same WikiProjects as the articles they are being used in, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, yep—to see it in action: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts#FfD czar 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Perhaps this will not please everyone, but it does provide some form of automatic notification. Maybe this bit of information should be added to the "Give due notice" section at WP:FFD. Marchjuly (talk) -- 06:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I participated in the remaining May and June discussions so they just need someone to flush/close them out or relist. I handled the rest. czar 17:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've closed a few more there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if {{Oldffdfull}} should be tweaked a bit to clarify that a "keep" vote for a non-free image does not necessarily mean any additional non-free image use is automatically NFCC compliant. Before WP:NFCR was merged into FFD, non-free use discussion took place there and {{Non-free reviewed}} was added to closed discussions. Non-free use discusion do not necessarily mean that an image is either kept or deleted; it is often the case that multiple uses of an image are being discussed and the result is that use is acceptable for some, but not for others. Perhaps additional wording should be adding to the "Oldffdfull" template to reflect this. It might also be a good idea to add something to No. 9 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines explaining about this. My concern is that simply adding "keep" without specifying which article(s) non-free use has been deemed to be OK might mislead others it to assuming that non-free use has been deemed compliant for all future use. As it is, many seem to think that simply adding a non-free use rationale template to an file automatically equals "being NFCC compliant" when that is very only dealing with WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So many images have been nominated for discussion. Yet so very little participation. What gives? --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As per the big set of instructions at the top of the page which you presumably haven't bothered to read, FFD doesn't work like that as it operates on a presumption of inappropriateness. People nominate files for deletion, and if there's no objection for a week then the files are deleted; a page with lots of nominations but few comments is what you should see when the process is working correctly. ‑ Iridescent 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes we also need to assess whether an image is more "appropriate" than it is currently (e.g whether a non-free image is actually free). And sometimes a nomination is made to clear up an (often minor) issue with the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a very long-delayed response. The talk page is least populated. The project page is slow to pick up people. Attendance or lack of it is exploited to delete images as "no objection to deletion". Yet no one has a problem with insufficient participation? George Ho (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have a problem with it but I really don't know of any solution. Maybe treating each undiscussed nomination where there aren't copyright concerns as a WP:SOFTDELETE/PROD? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because there is no participation doesn't mean people don't agree with the deletion of it. I don't bother to !vote delete on things that don't have discussion and that are obvious deletes. It is a waste of time and effort since it will be deleted with or without my line. --Majora (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that Attendance or lack of it is exploited to delete images as "no objection to deletion" seems to be assuming a bit of bad faith on the part of others. I think it's better to assume that the person nominating a file for discussion truly believes that its use does not comply with relevant policy or guidelines. Their interpretation may be wrong for sure, but that is for the community to figure out and for the closing admin to assess. Even freely licensed image use is not really automatic by default and there has to be a proper encyclopedic reason for using any image file. Things just happen to be trickier when it comes to non-free image use because there are 10 fairly specific criterion which need to be satisfied in addition to WP:IUP. As Majora points out, the lack of comments could simply because there has been a precedent established through previous FFD discussions where a particular type of use is not really considered acceptable or the result is obvious. Some files are nominated for discussion at FFD, when they could have been tagged with a speedy deletion template instead.

According to Special:Statistics, there almost 900,000 files uploaded locally to Wikipedia and I seen posts saying that more than 500,000 of these are non-free. Many of these files are probably be used in multiple articles and many are also probably being used in a manner that does not really comply with relevant policy. Of course, I do think it would be much better if more people participated in FFD discussions and have been trying to figure out ways to do so (see #/Delete sort tags above), but right now all we have are {{ffdc}}, {{fdw}}, {{fdw-multi}} to work with. I tried figuring out a better way to notify others regarding replaceable fair use at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#New NFCC notification template, but it got archived without any response at all. I think most of the community kind of assumes image use is automatic by default and are not really interested in discussing specifics about image use, unless it has to deal with one of their uploads or an article they have a particular interest in. Many also seem to feel that non-free use is simply justified by adding a copy-and-pasted non-free use rationale. Maybe it would be helpful if there was a simpler and automatic way to notify more members of the community each time a file is added to FFD. Even so, I do not think this would guarantee increased participation and would certainly not ensure "better" discussions, particularly regarding non-free use.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if having a bot automatically add a template (it already exists but I don't remember its name) to the articles a file nominated for FFD is used on would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen some non-free files tagged by User:FairuseBot for files missing non-free use rationales for some articles, but I'm not sure if it's used any more. I think bots were used more frequently back in the day (at least before my time), but there might have been problems with some of them tagging files which were OK by mistake. A notification bot might work, but as Czar explained in the above-referenced "delsort" discussion, adding a WikiProject banner to the file's talk page seems to add the file to the WikiProject's notification page in the same way as is done for a prodded or AfD'd article. The problem is most files do not have WikiProject banners added to their talk pages, and some WikiProjects don't seem to have "current discussions" notification pages. Also, better notification does not necessary mean there will be more people participating in a discussion. Some WikiProjects and editors seem to feel that a local consensus is all that is needed to justify a file's use and that FFD tends to be a place populated by anti-image editors who just love to delete things. Moreover, quite a bit of questionable non-free image usage seems to be regarding files added to articles a long time ago or articles which do not have lots of page watchers. Many times the original uploader of the image file is notified, but they actually have nothing to do with how the file is being used in a particular article. It's possible to scan through the article's edit history and find out who actually added the file to the article and invite them to the discussion, but this can be pretty time consuming and the file may have been removed/re-added multiple times by multiple editors. Posting something on the article's talk page or even a WikiProject talk page can be hit or miss and only seems to be "recommended" and not "required" practice. Maybe the FFD instructions need to be tweaked a bit so that the nominators are required to be more proactive in notifying others or maybe the file pages themselves can be tweaked so that there is an easier way to find out who added a file to an article and when it was added or that it is automatically added to any editor's watchlist who adds/removes a file from an article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone here help me fix this template? I always copy and paste the wrong dates. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Any input you may have on improving the bot, or whether the bot should run at all, would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC --Majora (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we have some mechanism for notifying enwp article watchers that related files are up for deletion? With FfD, we add in-line tags on an article so editors can come to the discussion, but do we do the same when a Commons image is up for deletion? If so, I haven't seen it, but I think it would be useful. It's not like the Commons discussion is any less relevant than the enwp FfD discussion. czar 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an automated notification process, so I think it depends on whether someone notices the discussion to begin with and then decides to add something to the relevant Wikipedia article's talk page, etc. When a Commons file has been tagged for deletion, the tag is visible on the file's Wikipedia page, but the Wikipedia page is not technically being edited so I don't think it shows up on Wikipedia watchlists. FWIW, I have noticed that within the past few months that notifications I'm receiving on Wikipedia are also visible when I edit on Commons, but the same does not seem to be true for Commons notifications showing up when I edit on Wikipedia. Maybe it would be possible to tweak this so that at least file uploaders would know one of their Commons uploads has been tagged and a notification has been posted to their Commons user talk. I'm not really sure though if Commons editors can be asked to add {{Deletable image-caption}} like templates to English Wikipedia article which contain images that have nominated for deletion on Commons, especially since Commons hosts images for all the Wikipedia projects and a particular image may not just be being used on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Something is wrong with your noficiation then. Global notifications have been turned on and should work. Please make sure the "Cross-wiki notifications" box is checked in your preferences under "Notifications". That was one of the main reasons in the past to never want to upload to Commons. Since images would be deleted there without the uploader's knowledge and without them being able to mount a defense. With cross-wiki notifications that is no longer the case and all images that are DR'ed at Commons have a corresponding notice placed on the uploader's talk page over there. Besides people paying attention to their uploads I don't believe there is anyway to be notified if an image on Commons is put to DR and asking Commons to do so would be too much as they host images that are being used on a lot more than enwiki. --Majora (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit of info Majora. I wasn't aware of that box and now have it checked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a task somewhere in Phabricator about having edits or changes to the Commons file display on the local address. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

How are we handling 2D scans of the text-only circle stickers in the middle of vinyl LP records? Are we saying they have no compositional originality? What about labels from the UK and its low threshold of originality? I know there have been a few cases for precedent, but I haven't kept track. Might be useful to have a template for these cases, both for us and for readers czar 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Same principles would apply to these. Most cases, the wording is all text and even for the UK that would be uncopyrightable. But often you'll find production logos too and if those are copyrightable in the host country, then the label is copyrightable too as a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus to merge the WP:NFCR into "Files for deletion" led to formation of "Files for discussion" in October 2015. WP:PUF was also merged per consensus in April 2016. Now I would like your feedback on the current process, "Files for discussion". What are your thoughts about this? --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's working fine. Do you have any concerns? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ramaksoud2000: There have been a fair share of backlogs lately as explained above. Some participation, but most of the nominations usually have one or two voters. Also, I have to use Twinkle or manual setup to nominate every file. Also, I have to add captions notifying readers/editors about the discussion nomination on files, or no one else would be aware that the files would be deleted. Also, the images at Tales of Eternia are still under discussion since June 2016. File:Finally 12-inch Choice Mix.ogg has been still under discussion without participation since May 2016. Also, a chuck of files have been nominated for discussion/deletion in one day or another. George Ho (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a definite participation problem. FFD needs more admins/commentators, but since Wikipedia is a volunteer service, I don't know of a solution. Files with no opposition to deletion are already deleted. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the other issue you describe is more a lack of tools than a problem with FFD. Commons has great JavaScript for nominating a file for deletion, but enwiki doesnt. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Not just that, Ramaksoud2000, the file names... are not exactly memorable to type. I have to copy-and-paste the whole name. There might be other concerns, but there's a long list. Another is organizing nominations by day, not by subpage like AFD. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by copy-pasting the name? Twinkle does that for me. Or are you talking about the image notice? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Twinkling single-file nominations is okay. However, I must do multi-file nominations; Twinkle doesn't do that. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

True. Unfortunately, I don't know JavaScript to write a tool for that. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• You wouldn't need to write a batch tool from scratch—it would just need to be imported from Commons and activated only in certain namespaces (e.g., on category/file pages). Sometimes all it takes is a request at the technical Village Pump and someone will port it over. czar 07:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• I used to participate in the old NFCR much more than I do at FFD. The problem with FFD is that editors bring forth uncontroversial/unchallenged actions. There should be a guideline to be WP:BOLD first, and come to FFD only if it's an unclear case or it's challenged (similar to WP:BRD). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Files for discussion nominations were mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Mass listings with identical rationales, disruptive by SmokeyJoe. The nominations by とある白い猫 began on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 6, and by my estimate about 200 files have now been express closed as delete mostly by Fastily.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I do not see the disruption. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a tool for batch nominations to FfD? Like commons:Help:VisualFileChange.js for enwp? czar 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: No there is not. It might be possible to port over that script but the targets would all have to changed. DRs at Commons are all their own page (like AfD here) while FFD is part of a single subpage. There are also different templates and talk page notices but those should be easily changeable. --Majora (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that the script can be found here: c:MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js. There are quite a few things that need to be changed since it does a lot. Talk page notices being the big one. Perhaps asking at WP:VPT would be the best option? --Majora (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If nobody else volunteers to do this, then ping me and I will put one together from scratch. Been busy IRL, so I can't promise I'll get around to it immediately, but I can certainly try :) -FASTILY 01:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this was pointed out to me, I have used it quite a bit on the commons and it is a really useful time-saving tool. Fastily, if you repurpose it for here, even if FFDs were the only function that would be great. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Throwing this here to get comments from file namespace folks. What are your thoughts on a bot that goes through Category:Non-free images for NFUR review and marks images as having a rationale if they have a completed rationale?

Example: Consider {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. That template is "complete" when it has its "Article" and "Use" parameters completed, as those are the only mandatory parameters. I could create a temporary tracking category to track all completed non-free use rationales for logos and then run a bot through to ensure that all transclusions of {{Non-free logo}} on those file description pages have the "image has rationale" parameter set to yes.

The goal would be to clear out a lot of the crap in the 180k+ NFUR review category to allow us to actually review non-free files without appropriate rationales. Thoughts on this? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

While this could be helpful, keep in mind that the rationale is just a mechanical thing that can be added and there still needs to be human evaluation and potentially some bot-aided review (eg each use of an image has its own rational, etc.) of the rationale to make sure it is appropriate. The suggested both would do one function but its not a complete solution nor can it be by the nature of NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Very true, but the current situation is no review for any of those files. The prospect that we'll ever get to looking at 180k files in a timely fashion is unlikely, to say the least. I could add an auto parameter to separate out those reviewed by the bot, but the main point here would be to get the existing review category down to the images that urgently need human review (I.e. With no rationale whatsoever). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sure, it still makes sense, but just to make sure that it's not affirming that templated rationales are necessarily valid. Also in writing any supporting language for the bot, it should be clear that templated rationals are not required, just that they do require more manual review than without. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. This bot would never be designed to review anything in the negative (i.e. nominate for deletion, etc.) due to the absence of a templated rationale. It will just review in the positive for a templated rationale which appears to have appropriate fields completed. I like the idea of adding an "auto" parameter set to yes for everything the bot reviewed so that any interested editor could provide human eyes on the bot-reviewed files. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• I like the idea, I have little experience with NFUR, having not really go into it, but it sounds like a "bot-assessed move to commons" sort of deal, with the massive backlog stopping people from trying to fix it, which makes the backlog grow unabated. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• I support the idea too. I think it is important to have the bot somehow categorize any files it has reviewed as bot-reviewed. -FASTILY 01:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Add my support as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled on File:17 High Park Road.png this today which is being used under fair use. To my mind this image is easily re-created by simply going to the location in question and taking a free photograph. There's nothing to indicate that this building is no longer there (i.e. that a new and free image would be difficult/impossible to get). I was wondering if someone could give me some advice on whether these kinds of FU images are legitimate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It is exactly as you say, The Rambling Man. Fails WP:NFCC#1. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a pretty liberal FOP for buildings in the UK according to c:COM:FOP#United Kingdom. So ,if the residence is still standing, then no reason why a freely licensed equivalent cannot be created by someone. Even if the house has been torn down, the use would fail WP:NFCC#8 because there no sourced discussion of the house itself in William T. Stearn#Retirement (1976–2001) to provide the context required by NFCC#8. On a minor note, the way images are being referred to in the article and captioned also seems to be atypical. Is it common to number images as "Fig. 1", etc. and then refer to them as such in the article content? I don't think I've seen that before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's unusual, although I have seen other such "Table 1" etc captions used, but it does make maintaining the article more difficult as removing one of these necessitates a fix to the text and then a possible renumbering of subsequent figures. I've notified the main author of the page of this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding File:Agnes Arber circa 1916.jpg, if the date can be verified to be correct then it is likely old enough for WP:PD either as {{PD-old-100}}, {{PD-UK}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}} or some other reason per c:Commons:Hirtle chart. If the file can be converted to PD, it will no longer be subject to Wp:NFCCP and can be re-added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That's helpful to know, thanks. Once the author gets back onto this, I'll make sure he's aware of these subsequent discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Backlog_of_unpatrolled_files for two proposals related to file patrol. Cenarium (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Our procedure for relisting discussions says that the discussion on the old log page can either be collapsed or removed altogether (since the content is moved to the new log page, and is linked from the old log page). TfD appears to have a preference of removing the discussion. I'm testing @Evad37's new XfD closer and wanted to see whether we should have a preference for collapsing or removing the discussion on the old log. czar 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Davey2010. Can you revert your edit back to "files for d"? There are subpages of formerly "Files for deletion", like Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 21. I appreciate it. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi George, My apologies, I assumed someone had accidentally removed the "iscussion" part by accident and at the time of archive searching the search didn't work so again assumed that was the other problem, The archive search seems to work again so not sure, Anyway thanks for noticing the error, Thansk, –Davey2010^Talk 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @George Ho, Train2104, Fastily, and MrX:, a lot of you mentioned that the definition of unencyclopedic should be expanded, so what do you guys think should be added on? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Before workshopping, shall the header instructions be updated first to reflect the consensus of the previous discussion? So far, the consensus agrees to have two criteria of an "unencyclopedic" image. --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:George Ho Yeah it should, forgot about that entirely. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I've created a page for the policy at WP:ROD, and updated the header. The policy page may need some fixing, I'm not the best at writing it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you think it would be best to go about putting routine deletions on the page? Its own transcluded page, or else just add it in at the bottom? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No opinion, but how about somewhere more convenient and easier with better loading times? --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Honestly we could just keep them seperate and have a link in the navbox/on ffd page. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose transcluding onto FFD. The XfD pages are already horrendous on small screens anyway, no need to make them even bigger. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As said previously at #RFC on routine file deletion, the status WP:ROD is downgraded from "guideline" to "proposed". Also, the instructions were removed as the discussion is reopened. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? An adminbot to delete all old file revisions of images in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old if there's only one editor in the file history (to filter out cases where the file is later changed to non-free, which might require admin review). It seems pretty safe to automate deleting old revisions of rescaled images marked as non-free by the original uploader. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how common that scenario is. My impression is that most files tagged for removal of old revisions were edited by 3 people, the uploader, the reducing bot and an user who tagged it for reduction. And bots and users cleaning up new uploads. I also wonder how many admins do in-depth reviews of such requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Even then, it should be pretty safe to process these via bot. There's a weeklong delay before the old revisions are deleted, and any sort of vandalism/abuse of the system is typically resolved within that timeframe. See also: here & here. Also, ping for @Ronhjones who originally suggested the idea. -FASTILY 00:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I see no issue here, sounds like a good idea. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Obviously works for me! Typically we don't delete old versions, we use User:Legoktm/Frescaled.js script (since it takes way too long manually!) which uses revdel to hide all the oversize images (there may be more than one!) and remove the template. This approach therefore still shows the file history. If there is an issue with the reduction, it's not that difficult to revert. I would rather all big files be reduced and manually revert back 0.1% rather than have 99.9% too big (and I think 0.1% could be overestimated!) I'll ping @Diannaa: as she has an interest in this field.Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have no objection to a bot doing this task, as like Ronhjones, I have discovered that the number of cases that actually require human intervention is vanishingly small (0.1% is probably overstating the error rate by quite a bit). Current practice is to use revision-deletion of the old revisions rather than outright deletion, as this helps ensure the correct person gets notified if/when the file gets nominated for deletion as an F5 or for some other reason, because the upload history is visible on the front-facing file description page rather than hidden in the back. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Sphilbrick: you have done thousands of these lately; what's your opinion? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm traveling - due to arrive tomorrow. Probably supportive, but would like to give it some more thought tomorrow when I am not brain dead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I asked DeltaQuad if she could handle this, and she's looking into it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support As Diannaa notes, I've processed quite a few of these and whenever doing so, vaguely wondered why it wasn't a bot task. My supposition is that it used to require more thought early on, but that's not important, the important fact is that there are a lot of these, the error rate is exceedingly low, and if a mistake occurs it can be undone. Like Jo jo, I would not restrict it to a single editor. A single editor is quite rare. Most involve a bot but many involve a human doing a reduction, so one cannot even limit it to a single editor other than bots. It would be nice to ensure that the bot is either dedicated to this task, or configured so that if a problem occurs, it is easy to identify the history to undo. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above, the error rate is low and it is normally those with more than one human editor involved that cause the problems - especially when it's not a reduction but a new version of the image. Bollywood movie posters are where I see edit wars most, over which version and rather than argue of which of two files the edit war is over which revision of one file. Nthep (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support, the room for error is small especially if it's just uploader->bot->deleter. The other cases can go to a category for manual processing, where admins can use the same script being used right now. While we're on the topic of non free revisions, there's a bunch of files where this applies that weren't reduced by the bot (some of which are the edit war case). Fastily any plans to bring back Fbot 8? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but it can be done if the need arises. -FASTILY 06:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not as privy to the bot specifics, but why wouldn't we have the bot that handles {{Non-free reduce}} automatically remove (revdel) the content of previous revisions? A spot check of the category shows that it's mostly resizes from DatBox task #6 (pinging @DatGuy). czar 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

DatGuy is not an admin and the bot policy says that adminbots need to be run by admins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we address the source by amending the existing task rather than setting up another bot round. (Though the latter would still be needed for cleanup at first.) Sure, it might entail transfer of bot duties, but that's surmountable. Question is how best to handle the issue czar 16:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As per Eumerus, I cannot run an adminbot. I don't think that a task to clear the category would be merged into my bot's current task since one is for resizing, and the other is for deleting, which is pretty much different topics, unlike what current adminbots do. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

God, that's a huge backlog. I've worked since my last comment on a script, which I believe 100% works. See here. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Other link has been removed for some reason, see https://pastebin.mozilla.org/8979643. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 00:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@DatGuy: If you try that from a PC and comment out the "api.apiDelete" line and have print "APIdelete ",page.unprefixedtitle at same place then the list of deletes is often too big - e.g. File:KNBN Logo.png shows 5 calls - it's including the first version which is already deleted. (I could not find module userpass, so used mwclient which I have already - seemed to work). Not sure how Wiki will like being asked to hide a hidden image! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Another example File:KNTM season 3 cast .jpg has 3 calls. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Userpass is a file that I use to keep my passwords secure, so as I can share the code. The line for version in todelete: is the one that says to go through each individual version. Try adding "print version" under it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@DatGuy: - see User:Ronhjones/Python Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All - note Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RonBot Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Anachronist, Godsy, Train2104, George Ho, MrX, Fastily, Steel1943, Czar, Xaosflux, Jo-Jo Eumerus, KATMAKROFAN, Nyttend, and Nabla: I have closed the RFC, to allow workshopping of what qualifies as unencyclopedic. So far we have

1. No realistic potential for use in the mainspace. It cannot be used in any article, either for an article about the image, or with the image serving any useful role. (This includes low quality and blurry photos per MOS\Images.)
2. A "vanity image", files that cannot be used by anyone but the uploader, if the uploader has made few contributions to the English Wikipedia outside of their userspace.

I didn't see anyone against the criteria, but many though it should include more. What else do you think should be added? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Low quality may be OK if it is the "best quality" for something that can no longer be photographed - but if not fair use really should be on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So are you asking us to decide whether these two concepts count as "unencyclopedic", or are you asking for more concepts, or what? Sorry that I'm somewhat confused. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

How about dropping the 'unencyclopedic' clause entirely, and reframing this as an extension to PROD as suggested in the RfC? As with article PROD and AfD, I would imagine that contentious file PROD cases would inevitably find their way to FfD. -FASTILY 01:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I'm confused. Maybe I misread the discussion, but I thought I was supporting something that was basically PROD for images, without an "unencyclopedic" requirement. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Iazyges. After reading Nyttend's comments, maybe we should do one of two options: 1) re-ask ourselves and others whether we should retain or remove the "unencyclopedic" definition, or 2) suspend workshopping the "unencyclopedic" criterion and then focus on expanding the PROD instead. We can't do both at the same time. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of the reason I meant to support an image PROD idea is that these, like article prods, could be restored upon request by anyone, and barring outright problems (copyvio, attack image, etc.), there wouldn't be a reason not to restore one. Right now, lacking such a process, all images not candidates for speedy have to go through FFD, and then they can't as easily be restored as if we had an image-prod process. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

File PROD

Okay, so dropping the "unencyclopedic" definition discussion and workshopping an extension of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (PROD), would the File PROD adopt all the criteria used in the current PROD (not previously PROD'd, no prior deletion discussions, no prior undeletions)? Should it exclude non-free files? Would the original uploader need to be notified? Etc. czar 03:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm... How about taking the discussion to WT:PROD? Would that be a suitable venue? George Ho (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the proposal itself, we could go for the extension to "File:" namespace. Any image, free or unfree, may apply. However, the image suitable for Commons should be excluded. Original uploaders deserve to be notified. Those swapping the image contents may be optionally notified. What about notifying the WikiProjects? --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll stand by my previous statement: all the conditions of the current PROD, plus orphaned outside the userspace. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"orphaned outside the userspace". Bad idea. Concerned this is process creep, and because some users (myself included) create galleries of files for maintenance/research purposes (ex: User:Multichill/Free uploads/2014-01-03). -FASTILY 08:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think it should mirror PROD, but require it to be unused outside of userspace. Non-free images would still fall into it I think. I have no issue with dropping unencylopedic entirely, and just making files PRODable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If we require images to be unused in mainspace, there's no point to using the process for nonfree images, because they already qualify for deletion if they're unused in mainspace; see {{orfud}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, I'm against orphaning images just to please the PROD. Why not PROD an image without orphaning it? George Ho (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with George. Creates extra work for both someone PRODing the file and someone wanting to keep the PROD'd file. -FASTILY 08:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges, seems that PROD should be a simple process for "File:" namespace and not too complicated. We can simply propose an extension at WT:PROD without one or more extra rules. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, if extension is approved, maybe we can create a new caption template similar to either {{Deletable image-caption}} or {{FFDC}}, or we can modify {{Deletable image-caption}} and that's it. George Ho (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, although an RFC will probably be needed, rather than just a proposal. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You may if you wish, but I think a newer section is more pleasing as this subsection is getting longer. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

Would anyone object to a the same criteria as article PROD, but require it to not be used in article space? I have no hard connection to unencyclopedic, and no issue with PRODing them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably add that {{Keep local}} files should be exempted. Not sure if the articlespace exemption should be limited to articlespace either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ay, a wording of non-userspace might be better. Keep local files are likely to be used, so I don't think an exemption would be necessary. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Iazyges. If it's contentious, then it'll end up at FfD anyways. FWIW the goal is not to replace FfD, but rather to move routine and uncontroversial deletions into a separate process. For that reason, the simpler and less instruction-creepy this is, the better. -FASTILY 08:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not so sure about "orphaned outside the userspace". Clearly, anything that is used in content space (article, template, project, category, etc) should NOT be eligible. But what about stuff used only on a talk page? In a draft? As for {{Keep local}}, exempting such files is probably unnecessary bureaucracy. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Clearly, anything that is used in content space (article, template, project, category, etc) should NOT be eligible". Why not? There isn't even a restriction like this for article PROD. Plus, if it's contentious, then it'll obviously get kicked over to FfD. -FASTILY 09:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

New discussion WT:proposed deletion#File PROD has started. George Ho (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As the backlog starts to slowly climb again, wanted to leave a little PSA that User:Evad37/XFDcloser, a new XFD script, works great with FfD both for closing and relisting. It's still in development, so leave a comment on its talk page if you have an issue. czar 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What about closing multi-nom discussions, like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#Tales of Eternia? Is the script compatible with a multi-nom discussion? --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it can handle multiple nominations, provided that either:

• there is the same result for all files (e.g. Delete all); or
• "No automated actions" is the selected option for "After closing" (e.g. for "keep [some], delete [others]" results, the FFD discussion can be closed by the script with a custom result, but then manual followup would be required for each file to implement the result) - Evad37 [talk] 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A recent Supreme Court ruling in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands will affect files on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The ruling essentially states that any design elements of a useful article (clothing, cars, etc.) can by copyrightable if (i) the design elements can be separated from the useful article itself into a 2D or 3D work of art, and (ii) that work of art would be copyrightable. Note that the first prong of that test is quite broad, as interpreted by the Court, basically stating that if you can take a picture of something, that's "separating" it from the useful article. Dissenting opinions in the 6–2 decision stated the obvious that just taking a picture of clothing doesn't make it not clothing, as the shape of the useful article is still present, but sadly the majority did not agree. The short of it is that many more images will now be free after applying de minimis when that principle wasn't necessary before, and images that focus primarily on useful articles may become non-free and fall under the non-free content criteria.

Full text of ruling: [1] SCOTUSblog summary: [2]

Along these lines, I have a bot task proposed that will slightly alter the text in ~400 non-free use rationales to note that the uniforms in question are under both trademark and copyright protection, not just trademark. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 35. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

For those admins who know what they're doing in the file namespace, help in that category would be ... well, helpful. There have been hundreds of files in there for over a week now, with it peaking sometimes above 1,500 files at a time. I've been trying to keep up, but there are many files being resized by a bot (catching up after a period of no active resizing bot, I believe), and I'm one person. There are a good 3,500 files that will be dumped in the category over the next 7 days, so it's not slowing down anytime soon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Got it down to one page. Relicensed some files, marked others for discussion or for further downsizing. Noting here that Xi Mingze has been uploading a lot of new files on top of older ones, often larger non-free files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I dropped Xi a talk page message a couple weeks ago. Their resizings were done in December or earlier, so it's just a matter of gradually undoing them. They are by no means the only person "guilty" of uploading higher resolution versions of non-free images. If we can ever get more "file" admins on staff, I hope to get someone to put together a report of all non-free files above a certain file size and go through it manually to find "too large" non-free files. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I stopped tagging files for reduction some time ago, as Theo's bot was stalling, and there was no point in tagging more as Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests was just filling up. Since DatBot6 has been successful in replacing Theo's bot, I have resumed tagging more images. I haven't (and I known another admin as well) been bothering with going through them (as we both used to) and using the rev del script as we are both hoping that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot will come on line in the not too distant future. I can stop tagging if you want, I would rather get them reduced, even if it means the rev del is delayed. There are still 247,864 bitmap images with a fileres:>314 (251,684 files if you add the types that the bot cannot reduce) - and yes, I know that a percentage of these will not be reduceable, but on present trends I guessing well less than 1% Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: You're welcome to continue tagging at whatever rate works, but it's probably best to accompany mass-tagging with helping out with revdels. While we await that bot, we still need to promptly take care of revision deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and pop in when I have some time. Clicking the "rescaled" tab is almost as mind-numbing as clicking "save" in AWB... Been a bit busy on c:Commons:Database_reports/Mistagged_non-free_files at present - non-free en wiki files uploaded to commons, some are good {{PD-textlogo}}, some are not. Some have been on both sites for years Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Emptied out the category today, leaving two problem children:

• File:Green Light (Official Single Cover) by Lorde.png: Been subject to a slow motion upload war and the current version may be the wrong one per the file talk page.
• File:Home alone ps2.jpg: Most recent file is broken.

Also relicensed one or two files and marked others for additional reduction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The second image looks fine for me. Sure it wasn't your browser or something? I've revdel'd it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Creating_a_new_PD-US-1923_template. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a couple Wikimania presentations that are relevant to the file process on enwiki. They are currently proposals. If you may attend Wikimania and would be interested in attending these presentations, feel free to indicate as such on the proposal pages. If anyone wants more information about these, leave me a talk page message.

• OTRS/Email: Communicating with the broader community (relevant due to permissions queues, which will be a major focus of conversation)
• Copyright for Dummies (obviously relevant)

I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the Copyright for Dummies slides; if you see something that could make them more effective or something missing, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#File PROD agreed to apply PROD-ding to files. The change may likely reduce backlogging of FFD noms in the future. --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: The File PROD has been implemented into Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (diffs). Feel free to PROD on files, but Twinkle is not yet updated. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

File:SelectTV logo.png and File:Petula Clark - Downtown 88.jpg are the first files to be PROD-tagged, one orphaned and one still used. --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Notifying Majora, Fastily, XXN, Jon Kolbert, and Kelly about the updates. --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Files for discussion. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to distinguish between multiple FFD nominations of the same file? For example, something like {{afdx}}. I occassionally come accross FFD discussions where the file in question had been nominated before and think this might be helpful to know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I propose to change the {{Ffd}} template to the version currently at Template:Ffd/sandbox, created by @KATMAKROFAN: to match the other deletion discussion templates. Any objections? – Train2104 (t • c) 13:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hearing nothing,  Done. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I notice that Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) has been doing a lot of relisting at FFD lately. I thought that in cases where the nominator implicitly or explicitly seeks deletion (or reduction in FUR scope), a lack of participation with no objections raised is treated the same as a consensus in favor of the nominator's request, i.e. the file is deleted or removed from the questioned article. Do these relistings follow FFD protocol and practice? Should I take this to ANI instead? – Train2104 (t • c) 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and actually would like clarification because of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg (see User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 20#File:RIT Hockey.svg for some related discussion). WP:FFDAI#Relist specifically states that "Note that at FFD, an unopposed nomination results in a delete outcome." I am assuming that these relistings were made in good faith, but I believe that burden is upon on those trying to keep a non-free file or maintain a particular use because of WP:NFCCE. If they fail to address the issues in the nomination either directly in the FFD discussion or indirectly by making changes to the relevant article or non-free use rationale, then there should be no need to relist. As long as the uploader was notified properly and the nomination was made in good faith, a relisting should not be the default. If the relister has concerns about the nomination statement, they can always add a !vote or comment in the discussion explaining their concerns. Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive is only an essay and it seems to primary focus on AfDs, but I think what is written in it can be easily applied to FFD as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect - but only suspect - that the backlog is inspiring people to mass relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were the same way in that those discussions tended, in general, to not attract tons of comments. This seems to have carried over to FFD as part of the NFCR-PUF-FFD merge. Unfortunately, there's probably always going to be a backlog to some degree on all the XfD discussion pages. It was only until earlier this year that {{Proposed deletion}} started to be used on files. The problem with Prod is that it's more geared to file deletion than file removal/license evaluation; moreover, Prod can be removed for any reason by anyone. There is {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}; however, if that's contested or removed, the only option left seems to be FFD. Maybe it's time to take a look at closer look at pages such as WP:FFDAI, etc. to determine if they need some tweaking to better reflect the current situation of FFD after the aforementioned merge. FWIW, I think that those who were involved in the merge prep and cleanup did a pretty good job. It's impossible to anticipate every little ripple and in some cases it just takes time for certain issues to appear. Maybe this is one of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with relisting from the backlog, since most of the backlog is complex cases or cases where objections are involved. These are not automatic deletes. I'm talking about relists like Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_June_26#File:Linda_Robson.jpg. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply - Sorry for the excessive relists. I was once told that "People are aware that there is a backlog, and that the best way to reduce the backlog is by closing the simplest discussions on my own." There is a discussion that has been open for close to one year. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and Train2104: Thanks for editing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. Is reformatting the heading needed? Readability is essential, yet the "What not to list here" section looks not easy to read, even when the list format is used. I can't think anything else wrong about the heading subpage right now, but I might have overlooked something else wrong. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Posting this here instead of nominating because I'm pretty ignorant of Crown Copyright, maybe the uploader User:Timeshift9 or others can elucidate. On the face of it, the statement that the source allows non-commercial use and the claim that it is in the public domain seem self-evidently contradictory. Maybe that's a problem with the file description and not necessarily a problem with the file. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm note sure why you are asking here rather than at WP:MCQ, Timothy. I'm sure they can help you there, right? --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably a better idea. I guess I had FFD in mind since I had the twinkle window open when I had second thoughts. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are 6 day old nominations not transcluded, and instead just linked under "Discussions approaching conclusion"? They are still open. CFD, AFD, etc don't remove them from the list until the end of the 7th day. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked about this before as Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Multiple nominations of the same file but never got a response, so I'll ask again. Is there a way to distinguish between multiple nominations of the same file like there is in the case of articles nominated more than once at AfD. If there isn't, then maybe there should be an FFD version of {{afdx}} or something similar to help distinguish these nominations. I am asking because there are occasionally discussions which are closed, but which do not in deletion of the file in question, e.g., remove a non-free file from one article, but keep in another. So, since consensus can change the file in question may be subsequently re-nominated at a later date for further discussion. In such cases, it would be helpful to be able to find the previous FFD discussion(s) for reference just in case it's not mentioned in the subsequent FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for the template created for files uploaded prior to the requirement that editors explicitly cite themselves as the authors (i.e., when "self" templates with no added detail were sufficient, like c. 2006). Anyone know what I'm talking about? czar 13:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Presumed self}}? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that might be it. Is there documentation somewhere on the necessary self-authorship declarations re: images uploaded prior to OTRS's existence? I know I've seen discussions before but can't place them. czar 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Something looks hokey about the Commons:File:Diversey_logo_-_updated.jpg. Where do I go to discuss this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The file is on Commons, so it needs to be sorted out there. You can ask for feedback at c:COM:VP/C if you like, tag the file for speedy deletion per c:COM:CSD, or nominate it for deletion per c:COM:DR. The file is the logo for Diversey, Inc., which is a US company, so it's possible that it would be considered below the TOO for US per c:COM:TOO#United States and be {{PD-logo}}, so you can ask about that at the Commons VP. Otherwise, it probably could be tagged with c:Template:No permission since since techinically the uploader is not claiming it to be their "own work", but rather only claiming that it has been released under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, or tagged with c:Template:Fair use depending on how certain you are that the uploader is not the opriginal copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I tagged it as no permission. It will be deleted in 7 days. The leaf/bird/whatever isn't a simple geometric shape. I believe it passes the threshold of originality. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you BU Rob13. I think npd is the best way to go here, and only mentioned the TOO just to cover all bases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure it will all get sorted out soon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and TonyTheTiger: The file's licensing was actually converted to "PD-logo" by a different Commons user, so technically an "npd" tag is no longer necessary. What will likely happen now is that a Commons admin will notice this and either remove the npd or restore the original file licensing. So, if either of you strongly feel that the file should not be "PD-logo", then it would probably be best to start a DR at Commons so that it can be discussed. Personally, I'm not sure since it seems comparable to some other logos of US origin accepted as PD by Commons, but there may be something particular about this logo which just pushes above the TOO for the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am unable to purge the page because there isn’t a purge link anywhere. I am a mobile editor. 165.91.13.209 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Which page are you trying to purge? An FFD page? Sometimes you can purge a page by making a null edit. Just open the edit window, and tehn save the page. Make sure not to change anything though because even the adding/removing a single space will cause software will think you tried to make an edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A day prior to File:Prachi Tehlan Black and White 2017.jpg's upload to WP, a lower-resolution version of it appeared on this copyrighted site. So, is it a copyvio? - NitinMlk (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: Most likely, yes. Their source is "Camera Click", which could be interpreted as "this website/company called Camera Click that does photography" or {{own work}}. The copyright statement also indicates own work. When a newer user uploads photos that can also be found elsewhere on the internet, that strongly implies that they did not take the photo. If they didn't take the photo, the license is probably incorrect and invalid, and therefore a copyvio. If they did take the photo, oh well. Both situations can be fixed with an email to COM:OTRS from the copyright holder. So, yeah, feel free to tag it F9, F11, or list at FFD. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, thanks for the explanation. Earlier I wasn't sure about the correct deletion tag for the above file, but now I will try CSD tag first. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Template:DualLicenseWithCC-ByND-3.0. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I made an attempt to fix the search box for the 'Files for Discussion' page, but that didn't work. Any ideas? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 20:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, as it says on the search box page this needs to be fixed on the backend. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Shouldn't the search box be removed until it works? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 23:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that just creates hassle when it is time to reinstate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to some comments here in some discussions here - Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 9.

The concern is that the current wording of the header (and rationale for FFD), doesn't necessarily cover the situation that arose, namely media that isn't disputed as being PD (within a given jurisdiction), but about which a status concern exists given that the media should be under a different (potentially more restrictive) license concerning it's PD status outside that jurisdiction, given an ambiguity as to the original or first publication. In this instance the desired outcome is not an outright deletion as the header would suggest but a clarification of the actual status, in this instance so that it can be more clearly determined if the file can be moved to Commons.

There's also an implied deletion threat in the wording of the header, which if this was genuinely intended to be Files for Discussion over the former Files for Deletion, should be re-considered. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know, the FfD detection logic for Article Alerts has been tweaked. In particular, rather than only look at what WikiProject banners the files are tagged with, it will also look on which articles the files are used. E.g. File:Charmed-dia-w.png isn't tagged with any banners, but it is used on Quark, which is tagged by {{WP Physics}}, so it will be included in the alerts of WikiProject Physics if it's nominated for deletion. This will be particularly handy for fair-use heavy projects like WP:VG/WP:ALBUMS and the like.

Report anything weird to WP:AALERTS/BUGS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Japan Ground Self Defense Force Emblem JGSDF.png

The above is in an error tracking category that I monitor and I'm hoping someone will know how to handle it. The problem is that {{Non-free reduced}} (which redirects to {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}) has been used without a date. I might fudge something to fix that, but I don't understand why such a template would be used when I can only see one file revision. Is there a more appropriate noticeboard? Ping Artanisen. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:Johnuniq: Hi the image size does not need to be reduced, because it is fair-use for educational purposes. It should stay the same size. Artanisen (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been often closing/relisting FFD discussions over the past months, but due to a combination of Christmas and my wiki-work on African humid period I won't be closing FFDs in the next few weeks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Since no-one at meta has decided to advertise this attempt to supercede local policy on enwiki at all, any editors interested in files should have a look at meta:NonFreeWiki. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, I am not sure if that was a good idea. English Wikipedia cares principally about the US copyright and there are images which are copyrighted in the US but not in the country of origin; we can't keep these except as non-free. I think that addition might confuse people into thinking otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: regarding Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading - I suppose it could be bot-updated again in the future, but in any event it made the main RFD page not be so cluttered in the wikitext with the mostly static header. Also, can't see why the /heading would need to be a redirect now? I think this should be maintained as a /heading page as is common on many other process pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Of course, in the event that the page is bot-updated again (which seems unlikely to me), this can be reverted. And, when no content on the page needs routine updating, what benefit, exactly, is derived from having the header on a separate page. The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion now needs to be edited only when someone wants to reword the heading or change how the discussions are formatted, both of which will to be relatively rare. Note that AfD has no /Header page, and my elimination of the /Header page at TfD has gone uncontested for three months. Currently, the only process page I am aware of that uses a transcluded header when the direct page has no bot edits is CfD, which has Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to, which doesn't cover all of the content, so its not exactly a standard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I think it makes the page messier - but if noone else cares its no big deal. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

...Since their subpages do not include ".../Log/...". I'll have to see where this leads as I may try to change that. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: it is possible, just requires a different approach. I'll work on it - I have some ideas --DannyS712 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome ... since the problem is clear, but I just don't know how to Lua. But, that may change by the end of this year. ☺️ Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and DannyS712: If you're trying to add FfD, the bigger problem is that the bot doesn't create Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. I could write code to handle the lack of the "/Log" fairly easily, but Anomie would need to make his bot create the /Old unclosed discussions subpage first. * Pppery * _{the end} 21:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: why would you need /Old unclosed discussions? you can retrieve the count of unclosed discussions by parsing Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions --DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Because I don't want to right any more special-case code than I have to. * Pppery * _{the end} 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: Well, I'd like to try writing it - given that there are only 6 "cases" total (A/M/R/T/C/F xd), I don't think its a big deal to have different code for ffd. Since it doesn't have backlogs like cfd and tfd do, it only needs a "total" count. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: At one point, WP:FFD had a 6-month backlog, so just providing a "total" may not be sufficient, especially if the administrators moderating FfD at this time go on to other tasks. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do with just a total, and then try to add that --DannyS712 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DannyS712: FFD has had huge backlogs in the past. There's no reason to expect the backlog not to grow again. It makes much more sense to me to incorporate FfD into the main framework of the module, given that it is easily incorporable into the framework of the module, then to have to write special-case code for everything; that's why I wrote this module to begin with. * Pppery * _{the end} 21:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If consensus at WT:FFD is in favor of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Old unclosed discussions, that could be done easily enough. Anomie⚔ 21:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. * Pppery * _{the end} 21:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Pppery, DannyS712, and Anomie: In lieu of any discussion after over a month, I'd say this request is uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pppery, DannyS712, and Steel1943: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Old unclosed discussions is now being created. Please update WP:FFD appropriately since that is no longer being updated. Anomie⚔ 23:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, I've updated FFD (and also boldly reformatted the page in a separate edit) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What are the rules regarding a photograph of a photograph? This image is getting used on the Vinod Dham Biography, and I suspect it shouldn't be. Apart from the copyright issue, it's effectively got an on-image credit. Just not sure if I should just crop it or nominate for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Not usable. The intent of the uploaded photo is clearly the inset photo, rather than a de minimus representation of the photo (eg if one was photographing a group of museum goers and that happened to be in shot on the wall behind them). This photo would be considered a derivative work of the inset photo, and assuming the inset photo is copyrighted, so would this derivative work. And as he is still alive, a non-free photo is not allowed. --Masem (t) 21:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank for the advice. I've removed it from the article and flagged it for deletion. If anyone disagrees they can revert. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The FFD discussion for File:RCA Bluebird 78 B-11230-B Glenn Miller.jpg was forked due to an improper relist by Atomicdragon136.

• Discussion started: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 17
• Relisted by MBisanz on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 29
  1. Relisted by Atomicdragon136 without closing May 29 on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 10
     • Relisted by Jo-Jo Eumerus on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 22
       • Relisted by Jo-Jo Eumerus on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 20
         • Pending closure
  2. Relisted by Jo-Jo Eumerus on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 25
     • Closed as no consensus by MBisanz

Jo-Jo Eumerus or MBisanz, would you sort this out? — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that the discussion of June 25 appears to be simply a shorter version of the one currently at August 20, I am thinking that re-closing the June 25 one as "invalid" or somesuch and telling people to go to August 20 may make sense; what say you, MBisanz? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I asked about this before at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Multiple nominations of the same file back in 2017, but never got a response. I think it would be a big help for there to be either a separate template for multiple FFD nominations of the same file or a way to tweak {{Afdx}} so that it can be used for FFD to make it easier (like the case at AFD) to know whether a file has been previously discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links. (A proposal to add edit links to the "Old discussions" section) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Template:Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe all the files in this article have been uploaded to commons inappropriately, but I never can figure out what the hell to do with images. If someone could take a look at these, or nominate them for deletion/review, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: For future reference, this talk page is more for discussing things specific to FFD rather than specific files. You can try asking about specific files at WP:MCQ, but you might instead want to try c:COM:VPC, particularly for Commons files. Commons files are going to need to be deleted from Commons and there’s not much that can be done from Wikipedia. The best you can do from Wikipedia is to remove the files from the article if you clearly believe they’re copyright violations. You can start a FFD discussion about their use if you like (i.e. whether contextually/encyclopedically they belong in the article), but a deletion discussion will need to take place on Commons.

Anyway, my initial observation is that all the files seem to have been uploaded around the same time by the same person even though the files are all from different journal articles written by different people. This most likely means that the files were uploaded my someone who meant well, but someone who didn’t create them and was just unfamiliar with c:COM:L. The uploader appears to be the same person who created the article; they showed up for a few days to create the article and upload the files, but then disappeared. You can post a note on the uploader’s Commons user talk page or their Wikipedia user talk page and ask them about the files’ licensing. If it can be established that they’ve been released as licensed, they can be kept; if not, they can’t. How the files are ultimately deleted from Commons if their licenses aren’t valid is a matter of procedure: either c:COM:DR or c:COM:CSD. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I can never figure what to do with images, and that includes where to go for anything. I cross posted a notice at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#en:Light_soaking as well. So I guess now I know where to go from here, until the next time I forget. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am a little unsure what the problem is. If it's copyright (and from checking some of the files, I think they might have copyright issues) a deletion request on Commons is necessary. If the images are being used inappropriately (too many, misleading etc.) then removing them as an editorial action is the solution. I'll check the copyright aspect of the images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like all of these files have copyright issues; I've nominated them for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There are currently three TimedText files that have been nominated for deletion (by User:Snaevar) at Miscellany for Deletion. A question has been raised as to why these discussions are at MFD and not at Files for Discussion, since TimedText are a special type of files. The answer is that the discussions are at MFD because the instructions at the MFD page list various namespaces that are discussed at MFD including TimedText. As in: "We do it that way." The expertise to consider whether to keep or delete such files is probably here at FFD rather than at MFD. I have started a discussion at Village pump (proposals) to move the deletion forum for TimedText. I invite regular editors here to join the discussion at VPR. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For files that are in use, the instructions on Wikipedia:Files for discussion says that the uploader needs to be informed and the page could be notified with a caption, but the template Template:Ffd says that the caption should be added and the uploader could be notified. Which of these are correct, or should both the uploader be notified and a caption added to the article?

I have noticed this on screenshots of television episodes, where the files were uploaded years ago by a user who likely is no longer is active on Wikipedia and it is far more likely that users would have the television episode articles on their watchlist as compared to the screenshots themselves. By also adding the caption to the articles, it is far more likely to get users to add to the discussion, as can be seen after I added the captions to the Black Mirror articles. I asked one user for added a lot of screenshots here why they did not add the caption since it is a lot harder to add the caption afterwards especially if the template is set to "help=off" instead of when they added the template. Their response was if the file was not deleted, they did not want to have to go back to the article to removed the caption, see User talk:Koavf/Archive054#File for discussion captions in articles.

I think the added benefits of getting more discussion by notifying the uploader and adding a caption far outweighs making things slightly easier for discussion nominators and both sets of instructions should remove "consider" to make the practice mandatory. Aspects (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If difficulty is the main issue, I wonder if a bot could be used to apply the caption; what say you Fastily? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Automatically applying {{FFDC}} isn't a straightforward task, and could be highly error-prone for a bot. On the other hand, removing {{FFDC}} where the outcome was keep is very simple. I'm willing to write the latter bot if there's interest. -FASTILY 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That would work, but I think finding a way to write FFDC would be more useful - I don't think that most people who watchlist an article watchlist all the files used in it. There might be classes of files for which adding the FFDC template is straightforward and those for which it isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The “ffdc” template is actually added to articles, not files; so, if someone is watching an article, then it will show up on their watchlist when added unless they have set their preferences to see only the most recent changes made. The same thing would apply to any notifications related to files added to article talk pages; they show up on watchlists, but how long they’re there depends on user preferences. FWIW, I’ve seen ffdc templates removed by users objecting to a file’s nomination for discussion, mostly likely because they see it a some kind of prod or just don’t understand how FFD works. Removing the templates after a discussion has been closed should be part of any post-close cleanup, but like {{Deletable image-caption}}, it’s often something that’s overlooked. So, if that’s the main problem with the template, then perhaps that’s more or a people problem than a template problem. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

FFD used to be “Files for deletion” and discussions were only about whether a file should be kept or deleted; so, like the other XfD noticeboards, uploaders were notified since it was their work which was being deleted. A few years ago, WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were phased out and incorporated into FFD; since those noticeboards weren’t always about whether a file should be deleted, the “D” was changed from “deletion” to “discussion”. The templates and information pages related to FFD were either tweaked to take the new scope of the page into account or new ones were created. There was quite a bit of post-merge cleanup so it’s possible that different people working on different things didn’t make the connection you’ve made. A few years have passed since the merge so now might be a good time to take another looks at everything, not just the {{ffdc}} templates, and tweak those things which need tweaking. It might also be a good time to create a dedicated “ffdx” template which works like {{afdx}} since some files like non-free ones now sometimes end up being discussed multiple times at FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Wonder if someone could help? On a page about Horwich RMI FC - an old football club now also listed on here as Leigh Genesis - there is a badge within the first paragraph. It states that the badge is owned by Leigh Genesis. This is incorrect. The badge is a new badge that was designed by Horwich RMI JFC - a new junior football club. The badge shown clearly shows Horwich RMI JFC. The JFC badge was designed in 2010 and has been used by the junior club since. The badge shown is NOT the original one used by the original club and is not owned by Leigh Genesis. Could it be removed please? Grundyhotpot (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Grundyhotpot. I think you may want to repost this request at WP:HD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a big complicated deletion review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 16#Multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters which is 30 days old now and nobody has taken on closing it. It's been posted at WP:ANRFC for 15 days, but still no takers. We need an uninvolved admin who is familiar with FfD practices to take a look at the discussion and close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

1977 old case. not able to get any information form Ga. records. can I bye pass the State of Ga. and pull up FED. records? if so how to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luther madry (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Luther madry. I think you might've posted your question here by mistake. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Files for discussion and I'm not sure how your question relates to that. If your question is related to a change you want to make to a specific Wikipedia article, then perhaps the best place to ask it would be on that article's talk page. If you're question is about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing in general, then you can try asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. If you're question is more of a general reference question that's not specifically related to Wikipedia, then you can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

I would like to nominate all files in Category:Former or old logos, Category:Alternate logos and Category:Anniversary logos to FFD. The rationale being (copied and sightly edited from similar nominations by JJMC89): Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical, former, alternate or anniversary logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that logo. The issue is however that an equivalent to Commons’s VisualFileChange, which allows for mass nominations, doesn't exist here so if someone could nominate all these files for me and leave a notice on all the uploader's user pages it would be very appreciated.Jonteemil (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think mass nomination of logos is a good idea. Many of them are useful to articles even if they fail NFCC #8, so they need to be individually reviewed to see if they are PD-ineligible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A mass nom would not be appropriate, as King of Hearts says, some may be able to be kept as under the threshold of originality, or that editors may be able to justify NFCC#8 reasons to keep, and that a mass action like that would be against WP:FAIT. But that said, old logos aren't allowed to be kept just because they are old logos and may be "useful". It is valid to go through one by one and if its clear that there's no justifed NFCC#8 or can be argued PD, then warn editors that deletion is likely. --Masem (t) 01:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my point about "useful" is to address the fact that unused files may be deleted on the English Wikipedia even if they are freely licensed (i.e. we have a higher bar for COM:SCOPE here). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts and Masem: Can someone then please nominate each file with the same rationale so discussions can be held for each file seperately?Jonteemil (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The mass FFD nom went through. I'd like to encourage a mass nomination like this to never happen again. Indeed, about a quarter of Jonteemil's nominations are clearly logos which fail to meet the threshhold of originality. Jonteemil shows poor judgement in the use of automated edit tools in making such rash nominations. 200+ noms also overwhelm the few volunteers who work in this area of Wikipedia. Given the sheer number of nominations, I'd also like to encourage closing admins to hold off for a few more days than the norm before closing, so as to allow each file, and the way it's used, to be properly scrutinized. schetm (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that some are {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-simple}} and also agree that I could have checked all the logos beforehand if some were too simple for non-free. I however don't think that it is strange that I assumed they all were non-free given that they were licensed as such.Jonteemil (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not such a strange thing to do; however, if you're going to be nominating so many files for FFD discussions, then you probably need to be a little more careful with respect to WP:TOO, particularly c:COM:TOO United States. Even if a logo seems too complex for {{PD-logo}} because it's not below the TOO for its country of origin, there might still be a possibility that it could be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for use on English Wikipedia only. Editors who work assessing non-free files all make judgement calls at some point, and I've got no problem with somebody making a good-faith assessment even though it may later turn out to be wrong. The problem though is that when a huge mass nomination of files is made like this is that there are bound to be some files that probably are OK for some reason or another. Perhaps the uploader just uploaded them as non-free content because they assumed that was the right thing to do or perhaps the file was uploaded as free content, but then someone converted it to non-free at some later date. For this reason, sometimes its good to ask about possible borderline cases at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC just to at least see what others think.

Lots of editors uploading non-free logo former files have pretty much no idea about things like WP:IUP, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC#cite_note-4; they just assume that logo files of all type must be OK per item 2 of WP:NFCI. Of course, this is not the case and every attempt should be made to sort out problem files. There are, however, a group of editors who know about things like NFCC, etc. and simply think it's something that never should've been put in place in the first place. They see anyone who tries to help clean up non-free files as being nothing more than a "deletionist" who's "anti-image" and is essentially destroying Wikipedia. Mass nominations like these come of as being WP:POINTY to them and are cited as proof that NFCC enforcement is ruining the project (or at least preventing it from being as good as it could be). Nominating 100+ files for FFD in a single day in a single edit seems quite excessive and seems to create an unnecessary burden on the small group of admins who tend to work with files. Moreover, using the exact same wording for each nomination is going to likely receive some serious blowback regardless of whether the same problem actually applies to all the files nominated. Lots of editors don't seem to like mass anythings done by scripts or bots because they think the potential for mistakes and abuse outweighs any time saved, especially when it comes to deleting things. Perhaps in the future, it would be try and break things up a bit or considered other options such as WP:PROD or WP:CSD. In some cases, even being WP:BOLD and removing an image might work as well. If a removed file is re-added, it can then always be discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

These mass noms need to be undone. The user was warned against his action and went and did it anyway. There were other options that they were told to review first. --Masem (t) 06:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: What I was warned against, was to make a single nomination for all the files collectively. Instead they suggested to make a nomination per file, which I now have done.Jonteemil (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As we posted above, many of these needed to be first evaluated for if they even exceeded the threshold of originality as to be copyrightable. That should have been a step before FFD. And while you did not make a "mass FFD" nom, you made the entirity of them in on effective mass set of nominations, creating the same problem. --Masem (t) 13:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This de facto mass nomination has created a huge mess. The shear number of files nominated in and of itself would be hard enough for admins to deal with even if each and every file were properly assessed and determined to be notn-NFCCP compliant. Many if not all of the files, however, don't appear to have been checked at all. Many probably don't need to be licensed as non-free content, but even some of those that do are being used in a way that is probably OK per policy.

Throwing 100s of non-free files against the FFD wall at the same time and hoping someone will come along and sort them all out is not a very constructive approach. Some of the files nominated may actually need to be deleted, but some might be simply end up deleted because nobody objected. FFD nominated files which aren't objected to often end up deleted by default. It seems like an entire category or perhaps multiple categories of files were simply nominated as such because of how they were categorized rather than how they were actually being used. That could be seen a kind of WP:CIR and WP:POINTY approach that creates more problems than it solves.

Not sure what to do here since some of the discussion have received comments which aren’t always in agreement. Perhaps roll back those FFD nominations yet to be commented on and then just hope the rest can be sorted out. One problem with "mechanically" nominating so many files for basically the same reason without actually looking at the individual file uses is that some editors may start feeling pressure to keep files; so, they pretty much keep "echanically" posting the same "keep" !votes over and over again also without looking at the individual file uses or without any real discussion of the relevant policy. This makes it that much harder to try and establish a consensus either way.

Pinging @Explicit, Fastily, JJMC89, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: for input since they seem to be admins who are active at FFD and thus might be able provide suggestions on how to resolve this. Two-hundred and fourteen files are currently listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14, and it seems near impossible to sort them all out in seven days. Not all of those files were part of this mass nomination, but almost all of them were. FFD discussion don't tend to draw a large number of participants to begin with; so, most likely many of these files won't be commented on outside of the original nomination. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)+ [Note: Minor copyediting done by Marchjuly. -- 01:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)]

Not sure really. Some of them could be closed as keep, delete or no consensus. Many will need relisting ... or we treat them "not enough input to establish consensus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

​Perhaps different admins see things differently, but FFD seems to be slightly different from other XFDs in that files nominated for deletion or removal tend to be deleted or removed after seven days if no objections are raised. I guess it's possible for the reviewing admin to feel that the reasons why the file was nominated are faulty (i.e. the file actually does meet policy), but in that case the admin would probably WP:!VOTE instead of WP:RELIST. Relisting only seems to occur at FFD when it's believed that further discussion might help establish consensus (i.e. multiple comments have been made) and not because nobody has commented (outside of the nominator) at all. Moreover, "no consensus" closes might also be slightly different than other XfDs and by admin. At AfD, for example, a "no consensus" close usually means a default "keep"; on the other hand, at FFD (particulary with respect to non-free content) this is not so clear. WP:NFCCE states it's the burden of the person wanting to use non-free content in a certain way to provide a valid non-free use rationale. If FFD is unable to establish a consensus that a particular non-free use is NFCC compliant, then essentially a "valid" non-free use rationale cannot be written. I know that not all admins see it this way, but that would seem to mean (at least in my opinion) that the file shouldn't be kept. This is not really reflected in item 7 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines, but that page predates the merge of WP:NFCR into FFD and might not take into account the particulars of the NFCC. Regardless, simply relisting lots and lots of files (perhaps 100+) because nobody commented seems like just moving the problem from one FFD page to another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Actually, this question was discussed before in 2009, and ironically that discussion resulted in no consensus; there seems to have been no similarly extensive discussion of the issue since. So there really isn't any universally accepted "right way" to handle "no consensus" FfDs. We should probably revisit that RfC at some point. I know that I've avoided closing FfDs as "no consensus" for this very reason, which is perhaps not ideal, because I end up making razor-thin calls to keep or delete when there really is no consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, an argument against defaulting to delete for FfD is that WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS require those seeking to retain prose to justify their inclusion, yet AfDs require a consensus to delete. WP:V is every bit as important a policy as WP:NFCC, but that doesn't seem to bother AfD closers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

​ My intent was not to try and use this discussion to restart the debate over the meaning of "no consensus" with respect to FFD. I realize that there has been quite a bit of disagreement over this for quite some time, and that it's probaly going to take even more time to sort such a thing out (if that's even possible). So, my apologies to all if it appeared I was trying to segue way into discussing another topic. There are enough problems with what's being discussed here that will likely take a bit of time to sort out; so, I'll try to keep focused on that task from hereon.

All of the files which were nominated for discussion seem to have been nominated for basically the same reasons: NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Many seem to be former/aternative logos used for reasons other than primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of their respective articles and these might actually run afoul of the NFCCP. There are quite a few, however, that are actually being used for primary identification purposes at the tops of articles and their non-free use doesn't seem to reflect the concerns raised in the nomination. There might be other concerns like WP:NFCC#3a or even perhaps WP:PUF, but these weren't mentioned at all. The primary reason that most if not all of these files were nominated appears to be that they were categorized as Category:Former or old logos, Category:Alternate logos and Category:Anniversary logos regardless of how the were actually being used. In at least one case (File:Seattle rainiers caplogo.svg), the file being nominated as a violation of the NFCC is actually licensed as {{PD-logo}} which means its use is not subject to the NFCC. In another case (File:NT Nitros old logo.png), the file in question was first added to one of the aforementioned three categories by Jonteemil and then nominated for discussion a few hours later at FFD. That particular file probably needed to be discussed, but the general approach of adding files to categories and then nominating them for discussion seems to be focusing more on the categorization of the files than how they're actually being used. I think all of this might be related somehow to User talk:Jonteemil/Archives/2022/April#Former old logos category, but I'm not quite sure how. Perhaps Jonteemil uploaded (or saw) a particular file that ended up being deleted for NFCC#8 and NFC#cite_note-4 reasons and thought that meant all similar files also probaby needed to be deleted for the same reason. Whatever the reasoning, this "mass" nomination has the appearance of a WP:DELETEALL type of an approach which is bound to lead to problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The nominations, from thought to action, went like this: 1. I see JJMC89 nominating a bunch of logos that were old or former logos for deletion with the rationale I now have stolen. 2. I'm not sure enough on policy to dare to nominate files on my own so instead when I stumble upon a logo which I think is not allowed I add it to the category Category:Former or old logos. 3. JJMC89 begins nominating all the files I add to the category for deletion, and they are deleted. Me finding old logos and adding them to the category continues, however JJMC89 stops nominating them for deletion. The category starts to fill up with more and more logos. I also create Category:Anniversary logos and Category:Alternate logos for logos that, while still aren't allowed, don't really fit into the first category. 3. I ask here for the files to be nominated for deletion since JJMC89 has stopped, but no one seems to be intrested in helping me so I go bold and do it myself. 4. I shortly thereafter also nominate all non-free the files which were entered as parameter {uniformlogo} where the parameter {logo} was already entered and all the non-free files which were entered as parameter {caplogo} where the parameter {logo} was already entered.Jonteemil (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I nominated the files in three edits. The first one: Special:Diff/972955817 included all the files in Category:Former or old logos, Category:Alternate logos and Category:Anniversary logos. I myself added all the files to these three categories and all logos have therefore been individually reviewed. The second one: Special:Diff/973002200 included all the non-free files which were entered as parameter {uniformlogo} where the parameter {logo} was already entered. Now, you might say all weren't non-free but they had {{Non-free logo}} on them so not so strange I assumed they were. The third one: Special:Diff/973021987 included all the non-free files which were entered as parameter {caplogo} where the parameter {logo} was already entered. The two latter were ergo not individually reviewed. About automatic deletion in 7 days, I strongly am for an extension of that to have a good discussion on each file, no matter how long that would take.Jonteemil (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by individually reviewed. Does that mean you just checked to see whether the files were in the same category or does that mean you checked to see how each file was being used? Perhaps you can clarify the following examples of files you nominated.

You nominated File:Tampabaydevilrays10thanniversarypatch.gif, File:5th Anniversary.jpg, File:Canadiens100Anniversary.png and File:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.gif for being former logos not complying with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Do you remember checking them because they actually seem to be being used for primary identification purposes in their respective articles despite what you stated in your nomination statement?

Do you remember checking File:San Diego Padres (2020) cap logo.svg? Did you see that essentially the same logo has been uploaded to Commons as File:SD Logo Brown.svg under a {{PD-logo}} license? If the Commons file is correctly licensed than mostly all the is needed for the non-free is for it to be converted to the same license.

Did you notice that File:BBC Two Paint ident.jpg is being used in three different articles in not exactly the same way? You made no mention of the different uses in your nomination statement. Does that mean you felt (feel?) all three uses are equivalent and thus all are not NFCC compliant? Sometimes a non-free file is used multiple times. Some uses might be OK (i.e. "keep"), while others might not be OK (i.e. "remove"). A file doesn't necessarily need to be deleted if only some of its non-free uses aren't NFCC compliant.

Finally, even though File:Birmingham Black Barons cap logo.png and File:HollywoodStarsCap.png were uploaded as non-free, they’re really nothing but letters on a colored background. Did you consider that the uploader might have simply made a mistake and chosen the wrong license?

Whether you nominated all these files in one single edit or split them up into multiple edits, it’s still a huge number of files and many of them might have been able to resolve in other ways. Moreover, you nominated all the files for the same reason even that reason doesn't seem to apply to each and every one of them. That's what's making this seem like a "mass nomination" even though it technically wasn't done in a single edit. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think I answered all of your questions in my previous response.Jonteemil (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What you posted above attempts to explain the general reasoning beyond nomintating all of these files, but I asked you to clarify the reasons while you nominted eight specific files. Anyway, let my try to simplify it even a more and ask you about one specific file instead. Why did you nominate File:Columbus Blue Birds.jpg for discussion? How does what you posted above apply to this one particular file?

Finally, since is now being discuused at ANI, my suggestion to you would be to try and avoid justifying all of these nominations in a WP:NOTTHEM type of way. What I mean by that is that people expressing their concerns at ANI about what you did; not what some others might have done. You posted above that you noticed JJMC89 nominating/deleting files for the same reason. JJMC89 is an admin who works with files quite a lot. If there were problems with some of the files he nominated/deleted, then those are problems he will address. Trying to argue that it was OK you to do this type of thing because JJMC89 did it will not get you very far at ANI. Same goes for saying it's the administrator who deleted the files who's really at fault since they should've known better. You posted above that you asked for help, but nobody helped you. Two administrators Masem and King of Hearts, who are both quite experienced with file related stuff (King of Hearts is also an administrator on Commons and an WP:OTRS volunteer), answered your question and advised you that such a "mass nomination" wouldn't be an appropriate thing to do. You did ask them to go and check the indvidual files, and I've got know idea whether they did that; maybe did look at some and decided that they didn't need to be discussed at FFD for some reason. Regardless of what they did or didn't do, you are the one who then decided to nominate all of the these files for discussion; so, trying to say others are also at fault because they didn't help is also not going to get you far at ANI.

My suggestion to you would be just to explain at ANI that you nominated the files in good faith, but some mistakes might of been made because you may have tried to do too much at once. It would also probably be wise for you to slow down a bit with the FFD nominations at least until the ANI discussion is closed because people are now going to be watching you to see if you make any more mistakes. If you really think a file needs further discussion, then you probably should make every effort possible to let other know about it by using things like {{ffdc}} templates and {{Please see}} templates. Some WikiProjects have their pages set up so that the project automatically is notified when any of the article, template, files, etc. that fall under its scope are tagged, prodded, or nominated for deletion/discussion, but not all do. Moreover, it will only work with file when the WikiProject's banner has been added to the file's talk page, which is something that is not always the case. So, you can make it easier for others to know about something by adding a "Please see" template to the WikiProject's talk page. For obvious reasons, if you're nominating multiple files that fall under the scope of the same WikiProject, then one notification message for all of the files would probably be better than a specific notification for each file. You're not required to do any of this, but people are complaining at ANI that you're not properly notifying them; so, making a little more effort in this area might show that you're trying to make an effort to address their concerns and learn from the ANI. Someone also mentioned WP:MEATBOT at ANI, which basically means that even if you didn't use a bot/script or didn't nominate all of these files in one single edit, the perception is that the end result of what you did is basically no different from using a bot or nominating all the files in one edit. So, you might what to avoid doing anything like this again at least for the time being. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: File:Columbus Blue Birds.jpg was added in the third edit: Special:Diff/973021987 which per my earlier comment included all the non-free files which were entered as parameter {caplogo} where the parameter {logo} was already entered. Now you must wonder how I reasoned there, because the logo is not non-free, and that's a fair wonder. I simply wrote all filenames with brackets at Commons and all the redlinks I hypothesized were non-free since otherwise they should be at Commons. I did a few samples to test my hypothesis that all redlinks indeed were non-free and I found no free files. Unfortunately my samples didn't include the few free files that were incorrectly nominated, this one being one of them. I get that people immideately think I'm acting in "a wp:NOTTHEM" when I don't fully agree with the criticism, but that's something I'll just have to accept. I won't change my mind just because people say I will, without of course being ignorant. I am capable of changing my mind. Also, please don't put words in my mouth: Trying to argue that it was OK you to do this type of thing because JJMC89 did it will not get you very far at ANI. If you interpret it as such, you have all the right in the world to do that, but it isn't that easy. Same goes for saying it's the administrator who deleted the files who's really at fault since they should've known better. I have a problem with this statement too. Why should I take responsibility if something is incorrectly deleted? Simply don't delete it? If it shouldn't have been deleted, then why was it? so, trying to say others are also at fault because they didn't help is also not going to get you far at ANI., this is simply just wrong. No one is at fault for not helping me, obviously. The WP:MEATBOT criticism I actually agree with. What I did clearly is in violation of WP:MEATBOT, of which I wasn't aware beforehand.Jonteemil (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a claim by Kim Erik Olsen that some of the images I used on Dorothy Olsen are not in fact PD, as I understood them to be. Could somebody who is better versed in PD image issues than I am please take a look? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: You'd probably better off asking about this either at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC. The files all were uploaded to Commons; so, there's no real way to resolve them on Wikipedia. Moreover, this talk page is more for discussing things about FFD than for discussing actual files and Commons files don't fall within the scope of FFD. I will add that sometimes US government websites sometimes host copyrighted content provided by third-parties, which means that it's possible that the claim being made is true. That, however, will need to be resolved on Commons; most likely via c:COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a brief note to c:User talk:Kim Erik Olsen that contains a link to c:COM:Contact us/Problems. I also moved the comments that were added to files' pages to their corresponding file talk pages; so, you may respond there if you like. However, I'm not sure what else can be done other than starting a c:COM:DR for the files (you can do one for all the files) and see what the consensus is. The claims being made might be true, but some kind of "proof" may need to be provided to establish that they are. Perhaps @Explicit: can help because he's also a Commons administrator? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

These files need to be discussed on Commons, perhaps at in a batch deletion request, but more information is needed is required. Kim Erik Olsen is seemingly contradicting the US Air Force's claim that these photos were created by an employee of the United States Government as part of official duties, but without evidence. Who took these photos, then? How did the Olsen Estate get a hold of each picture's copyright? Was their a transfer of copyright at some point? ƏXPLICIT 03:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The subject of FFD notifications seems to be brought up quite a number of times before (according to this page's archives), but it still seems to be a issue that occasionally appears (most recently at WT:NFCC#Image nominated for deletion simply because an editor doesn't like it) that might be causing some misunderstanding or even worse actual problems between editors. The current FFD instructions seem to only require that file uploaders be given due notice; it does mention that WikiProjects and other editors may be also noticed, but seems to say doing so is just an option. Same goes for whether to use {{ffdc}}.

For obvious reasons, notifying the uploader makes sense and is consistent with other XFD pages. Files, however, tend to be different from other pages is that the actual FFD template is added to the file's page and most editors who actually use file probably never even bother to look at the file's page yet alone add it to their watchlists. In some cases, a file might be uploaded by someone who is no longer active or might not be connected to how many ways the file is being used. This seems to be the case with respect to non-free content much of the time; someone uploads a file years ago for use in one particular article, and other editors subsequently start adding the file to other articles. So, there are lots of cases, where a file nominated for discussion at FFD might not receive lots of comments simply because those who might be interested in the file's use aren't aware it's being discussed until after the file is deleted and removed from the article(s) where it's being used. There's Community Tech bot which adds notifications about Commons files to article talk page; so, maybe a bot could do the same for FFD. Anyway, the basic question is whether it should be required that FFD notifications be added to the articles where files nominated for discussion are being used. This could be resolved either via an RFC or through regular talk page discussion, but I think the question "Should FFD notifications on article talk pages be mandatory?" needs to be answered for once and for all.

There are some other issues that I'd also like input on like a WP:DELSORT type of set up for FFD, how to deal with files which have been nominated multiple times at FFD (e.g. an FFD version of {{AFDx}}), possibly adding {{oldffd}} to article talk pages as well as file talk pages, whether article talk page discussion or file talk page discussion should be required prior to FFD (as some noticeboards seem to require), etc., but resolving the notification question first is probably more important. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've seen nominators making very similar rationales in individual listings without realizing the alternatives to mass-nominate related files into one section. And I have to merge those listings if they can let me. Are instructions on mass nominations not visible to most editors? If that's the case, then how do we improve the readability/visibility of such instructions? Speaking of instructions, I recently found out this generator to easily create sourcing of mass-nomination, mentioned by the instructions. If that's not the case, then what else can be done about individual listings using same rationales? --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

On January 1, 2021, all works published in 1925 will enter public domain in the US. Presumably there will be files from 1925 that were previously deleted, but can be undeleted on January 1. Is there a coordinated/formal process for doing these undeletions (similar to c:COM:Public Domain Day)? Or does the normal process for undeletions apply (ask closing admin first, then go to deletion review if unresolved)? Wikiacc (¶) 22:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any coordinated process given that there's no assurances that we keep deleted files. If there are files that would happen to qualify (in which it is clear publication was 1925 or before), then either messaging the closing admin that deleted the image or failing that, asking for WP:REFUND due to the newfound PD-ness would be appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have made a request for a bot at WP:BOTREQ to move old WP:Files for deletion pages to WP:Files for discussion similar to the move of WP:Votes for deletion to WP:Articles for deletion. Any thoughts? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Moving old WP:FFD pages. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Starting RFC since no input yet. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@P,TO 19104: This is a cost/benefit question. What would be the benefit of such a move? The cost is the disruption, the effort, and either a lot of new redirects or a lot of link changes, among other things. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@L235: You make a good point - but my proposal is merely based on precedant, specifically the move of all former VFD pages to AFD by SmackBot. In that case, yes, a move was made each time with a redirect being left behind for those (who knows how many) pages. Thus, I think at the very least we should have those Files for deletion pages redirect from Files for discussion for consistency or be moved to the former title for consistency. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you'll need a better justification for this proposal than that we did it once back in 2005. I wasn't trying to make any point, though – I am curious, what is the benefit? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@L235: Let me clarify. The benefit of this move would be for archival consistency for when a new user who may not have know that Files for discussion was moved from Files for deletion and is attempting to look in the archives. Of course I don't want to be annoying, but this has also been done with the moves of WP:SSP to WP:SPI, and I think it would just help to have a consistent Files for discussion archive. Of course, FFD was also a merge of other venues, but there is still of course a running header among all FFD archives. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be able to find it in the archives? For example, the current search box on the top of WP:FFD searches through pages whose title starts with "Wikipedia:Files for d", which seems like it works well. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Since this has been sitting for a few days, I oppose for the reasons given above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Page title consistency is almost always important. Among other things, different page names make it harder to search just within a group of pages — look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index, which has two search fields because the older arbitration cases and the newer arbitration cases had different naming. If you're at a specific "Files for discussion" page and want to go to an older one, you might be confused to see that it didn't exist, when really it just had the older naming structure. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings everyone!

If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.

You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.

Thank you!

(MRaish (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC))

This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the privacy statement for this survey.

I started a discussion about this a few years back Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Delsort tags and appreciate the comments I received from Steel1943 and Czar at the time. A recent edit made to a FFD discussion by GiantSnowman, however, makes me think that now might be a good time to revisit this subject again and reconsider whether WP:DELSORT templates can or should be used in FFD discussions. GiantSnowman is the first person I ever noticed adding a delsort template to an FFD thread, but I've always wondered why it's not something done more often.

FFD doesn't seem to attract as many participants as some of the other XFD pages do and part of this could simply just be an over all lack of interest in file related matters. Lots of editors probably just treat files as an afterthought or minor aspect of Wikipedia, and just assume file usage to be pretty much automatic in all cases. Anyone who works with files knows there's more to it that this, but most people don't and the only time they might show up at a FFD discussion is when a file they uploaded or added to an article ends up being discussed. So many FFDs end up with minimal participation (sometimes just an nomination statement), and in some cases the results of these discussion end up being contested sometime down the road by someone who claims they weren't aware or the discussion or there's was insufficient participation or whatever. Some admins might treat a file deleted/removed in such a way as a sort of a WP:SOFTDELETE because of the low participation, but the FFD page actually states that files may deleted or removed after the FFD has run seven days in cases where "no objections to deletion or removal have been raised". In other XFD processes, this type of lack of participation seems to often end up being a "no-consensus keep", but the FFD instructions (particularly for non-free content) seem to imply that "no-consensus" means "delete/remove".

Another possible reason for the lack of participation at FFD might have to do with the notification processed involved. Lots of files don't have talk pages and in many cases the uploader (who might no longer be around) ends up being the only person notified when a file ends up at FFD. I personally try to use things like {{ffdc}} when I can in an article, and also try to add at least one WikiProject banner to the talk pages for files I nominate for discussion because I'm hoping this might make it easier for others (besides the uploader) to know about the discussion. I've occasionally added a {{Please see}} template to a WikiProject talk page or an article talk page, but I don't always do so.

Anyway, I'm wondering whether there's a way to enhance the notification process which at least will make it a bit easier for others to know that a file is being discussed. Delsort tags might be a good way to do this (if it's technically feesible), but there might other ways as well. I'm not necessarily suggesting notifications for individual editors who might be interested in a particular discussion, but more general notifications for article talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc. There's always going to be someone who complains that they weren't notified or that three people !voting isn't a consensus, but there's never going to be a fix for that. File use (particularly non-free content use) seems to be one of those things where 100% agreement is never going to be achieved, but a bit more can and should be done (at least in my opinion) to try and get more members of the community involved in these discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything which encourages wider participation / stronger community consensus should be welcomed. GiantSnowman 14:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have stats on which alerts/notice pages bring in the most editor traffic (or know if we track that sort of thing) but I'd wager that Article Alerts likely have more active viewers than Delsort pages. Not opposed to either. In the case of Article Alerts, it's as easy as FFD regulars using WP:Rater to tag WikiProjects while the discussion is live. In the case of Delsort, I think more technical finesse would be needed as discrete FFD discussions are sections on a shared page rather than individually transcluded pages. I imagine that wouldn't be worth the effort unless someone knows of an easy fix. Then it would potentially be as simple as extending WP:Twinkle's Delsort selector to also apply for FFDs.

Another option could be a WikiProject bot that takes the week's FFDs (if not other low-traffic XFDs) and substs them on the WikiProject's talk/noticeboard page. Like a {{please see}} but automated. Would require some discussion but I'm a fan of this use of WikiProject talk pages in general. There are some projects that might object by the sheer volume they'd receive (i.e., Biographies) but most projects would have a reasonable list posted each week, for visibility. This said, anyone particularly concerned will likely already be viewing the relevant Article Alerts. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also copyright rules are excessively complicated. It's not particularly surprising that there is low participation based on the accessibility of the discussion. I think that comes with the territory. But as I said nonetheless, all for more visibility. czar 01:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have always thought that we ought to have a bot that tags the articles where an image is used with {{FFDC}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There's been another mass nomination of files made by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 4#Files in Category:Cap logos. While it might be technically possible to nominate so many files at once and there doesn't appear to be any formal restriction placed on the number of files that can be nominated at once, it might be a good idea to discuss whether a proper discussion can be when so many files have been nominated at the same time. FFDs are expected to run at least seven days, and after seven day they can be closed per the nomination if nobody bothers to comment.

When you have a nomination of so many files at once but the reasons for nominating each file are clearly laid out by the nominator, then it might be possible to discuss the merits of each individual file. However, when you have a bunch of files nominated and the only reason given is to another page where there was some discussion aout possibly nominating the files, then there's a much lesser chance of it leading to a productive FFD discussion and a much greater chance of leading to what happened before at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Mass FFD nom and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil. Perhaps some of the files should be deleted for WP:NFCCP reasons, but perhaps there are also other ways of doing so that don't involve nominating 50+ files at once.

FWIW, I randomly clicked on ten of the files which were nominated and none of them weren't tagged with {{FFD}} to indicate that they were being discussed at FFD. The uploaders of each of the files were also not notified that the files were nominated for discussion and there was no indication given on the articles where the files were being used (e.g. {{ffdc}} or a {{Please see}} on the talk page) that they had been nominated for discussion. Perhaps these are things which will be done later by the nominator or by some bot, but they're important things should be done because they help make the FFD process more transparent and known to those who might want to comment on the files. It also helps avoid editors complaining later on about files being deleted without any warning or notification. There also was no notification placed on the talk page of the WikiProject whose scope these files fall under which probably have been a good idea just as a courtesy even if it's not required simply because of the number of files involved and because it relates to image use in a infobox template being used by so many articles which fall under the project's scope. Some of the files nominated don't have file talk pages which means the alert page might not pick them up even if they are properly tagged for discussion.

While I think the nominator is acting in good-faith based upon whatever guidance is being given on the FFD page and the category talk page where this was sort of discussed, I also think it might be time to decide whether these types of mass nominations should be allowed, in principle, or at least try and provide more guidance regarding how to best do them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to point out that me not tagging the individual files was because an unintentional brain error in my head. The bot does notify the users of each file but it does not tag the files. I for some reason thought it did. If I would've remembered this I would've tagged each file. Regarding the phenomenon "Mass nominations" I think maybe it would be good to check with other users beforehand, as I did this time, and with or without their blessing you might and might not, respectively, do it.Jonteemil (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Item 3 in the "Instructions for listing files for discussion" section on the main FFD page is about "giving notice". The instructions state Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}". To me, this sentence means that compliance isn't an option; in other words, if you nominate a file for discussion, you are responsible and required to notify at least the uploader of the discussion. The other part of Item 3 about adding {{ffdc}} templates to captions and notifying WikiProjects does seem to be optional; doing so would be courteous perhaps, but it's not necessarily required. I think that most XFD nominations work the same way in that making the discussion as known to as many interested parties as possible is probably a good thing in general, but a specific individual notification is required to be given to the editor who created the page. Whether they end up responding or not is up to them, but notification is still required.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether it's something that just started happening recently or something that has been happening for awhile now, but there seems to be a bo which goes around informing file uploaders that one of their uploads is being discussed at FFD. I'm not sure if the bot only does this when the FFD nominator fails to do or forgets to do so and a certain amount of time has passed, or whether the bot will automatically do so each time a file ends up at FFD unless a human editor does it first. If the former is the case, I think that perhaps some clarification needs to be made that nomination is still mandatory and that intentionally not doing so because you think a bot will do it for you at some point is not really good practice. If the latter is the case and the bot will be triggered into action when {{FFD}} template is added to the file's page, then maybe the process should be streamlined a bit and the FFD page tweaked to reflect this.

I don't use scripts when I edit, but lots of editors do. I don't know how things like WP:TWINKLE work per se, but lots of editors do seem to use it to try and make things a bit more efficient. Many these scripts have become so common these days that things like manual notifications are now more of the exception than the rule. If that's the case and a script or bot can do things more efficiently, then maybe once again it might be a good idea to take a look at the FFD process and see if it can be streamlined a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be required to have some sort of notification on images/captions themselves, or failing that, on the talk page for the articles that embed the image (except perhaps in some special cases, like TfD merge discussions on templates that are extremely widely transcluded). I noticed that there is a bot that leaves notices on talk pages when a Commons image used on a page is nominated for deletion, but there is no equivalent for local files. Perhaps this could be also automated by script or bot, but I think the current situation of just notifying the uploader is highly insufficient. — Goszei (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I brought up the Commons bot in a similar discussion on another page (I just can remember where at the moment) because it seems like a reasonable thing to try and implement. I don't remember what response I got or if I even got a response, but I still think it's a reasonable thing to do if it can be done. Some editors might still complain that nobody told them about it, but there at least would be something on the article talk page not only while the FFD discussion is taking place, but also for reference after the fact. Template:Missing rationale2 is actually for article talk pages in cases where non-free files are being used in an article without the required non-free use rationale. Perhaps a similar template could be created for article talk pages for files being discussed at FFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest making a WP:BOTREQ thread. — Goszei (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is being reverted [3]. WP:NFCR clearly states that WP:FFD is the place to discuss this. Since {{don't know}} and {{license change}} are clearly two templates related to non-free content review, it is obviously of concern to the centralized discussion that NFCR was merged to, which is FFD.

-- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are even trying to do, but {{don't know}} and {{license change}} are not going to be deleted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 65.92.246.43. Try using template {{Please see}} for notifications such as this. The notification template your using ({{Tfd notice}}) is probably OK to use like this, but generally such templates tend to only be used on the user talk page of the person who created the page being nominated for deletion. This might explain why your adding it here was reverted, and your intent was probably misunderstood by the editor who reverted you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Jee, I finally figured it out. The IP used {{Tfd notice}} but didn't fix the link it produced. It linked to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 24#Template:License change and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 24#Template:Don't know when the actual discussion is on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 19#Template:License change and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 19#Template:Don't know. So of course you get reverted for notifying people using links that go nowhere. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Sorry 'bout the bad discussion link. Still the template itself had the deletion notice attached. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Crikey, good thing 65.92.246.43 complained. Deletion in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 19#Template:Don't know would have made a mess. (in response to User:Q28's signature: I guess you did make a mess that day ) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I just ran a quarry looking for files of formats that can't be uploaded anymore. What I found was 44 files, 43 of which are bmp files. I'm not really sure how these should be handled but, I think this situation feels suboptimal. Thoughts? --Trialpears (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears: They could be converted to PNG, shouldn't be terribly difficult. (I've done something like that before on a batch of fake svg files) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is the list of currently support file formats? And are no bitmap formats currently supported? (ie. TIFF [4] has a bitmap format embedded within it) -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

TIFF is a messy format that MediaWiki can struggle with. A list of currently supported file types can be seen on Special:Upload (which I guess you can't see): Permitted file types: tiff, tif, png, gif, jpg, jpeg, webp, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga, flac, opus, wav, webm, mp3, midi, mpg, mpeg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I suppose there should be a MediaWiki-namespace page for that list. As WAV is an uncompressed audio bitmap, will it also be disappearing in the future, you suppose?

found the list of file formats, it is at MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js hardocded in. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That's just a client-side check for the JS upload wizard, you can override that by for example not using the JS upload wizard. The list I gave you is server-side, no way around that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That TIFF is such a extensive grabbag of internal formats, is there a location indicating which ones are supported by Wikipedia? I assume it is using PagedTiffHandler and therefore ImageMagick and LibTiff. That seems to indicate that it should support TIFF-embedded-bitmaps. -- 03:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.43 (talk)

Doesn't really matter, bugs happen and bugs in TIFF are low priority so if/when it breaks nobody cares and it stays broken forever. I can't think of a compelling reason to use TIFF instead of PNG. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI {{File with non-existent categories}} and {{File with non-existent templates}} have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to hold back on low participation, but I can't. Even after File PROD became effective in 2017, and even with decreased amount of nominations since the File PROD, FFD participation has been still usually low. In my experiences, ones who replied to my listings have been usually uploaders and regulars and sometimes those wanting to defend certain files. Participation as ever has been still low. Is this how FFD will have been? If so, then... I guess I feel powerless? I have become unsure whether inviting others, including those unenthusiastic, for input would help much. --George Ho (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're really asking questions or whether you're just posting on the general state of things. FFD participation has, for as long as I've been participating in such discussions, always been generally low but that seems to be the case for many XFD discussions. Those who tend to !vote or comment in an FFD are usually uploaders, those interested in the particular file or those interested in files in general. Occassionally, a file nominated for discussion might be one that's used in an article with lots of watchers and some of those editors might gravitate to the FFD discussion and comment, but that's not the norm. Some WikiProjects do actively watch files used in their articlesl and discussions about those files might attract some comments from that WikiProject's members, but again those discussions aren't the norm. You can try adding {{Please see}} templates to WikiProject talk pages as a way to stimulate interest, but I'm not sure what else you can do. Lots of editors seem to like to use files in articles, but not many really seem to want to get involved in long discussions about file use at FFD or MCQ. The situation was pretty much the same at WP:NFCR and WP:PUF, and it's pretty much that way over on Commons with respect to c:COM:DR; I'm not sure why we should expect FFD to be any different. Perhaps the low participation was expected from the back in the day when FFD was established and that is why FFDs that go without objections be made after seven days tend to be closed in favor of whatever the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, two file cleanup categories are nominated for deletion, Category:Reuploaded deleted images and Category:Verified reuploaded deleted images and Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale for more than 7 days -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI {{File page NFCC concerns tag}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:MPL 2.0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, file license tag Template:Don't know (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for renaming. See template talk:Don't know -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

When a file has multiple revisions by different uploaders, should the most recent uploader, the first uploader, or all uploaders be notified? 9³ (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the original uploader is the only one who is "required" to be notified (that's what happens if you happen to forget and the notification ends up getting done by a bot); so, notifying anyone else may depend on what their contribution to the file actually was. If all they basically seemed to do was some minor cleanup (e.g. straightening, cropping, etc.), they might not have such a vested interest in the file. If they appear to have uploaded a completely new or updated version, then perhaps it would be courteous to let them know about any discussion. If the file is a non-free file, then the older versions have probably already been deleted (actually they're only hidden from public view and can still be seen by administrators); so, you might need to look at the file page's history for edit summaries to see what was done. In addition, for non-free files that are being used in multiple articles, you might have to check the file page's history to see whether the non-free use rationales for all the uses were added by the same editor or multiple editors (often the uploader only intended to use the file in one article or in one way, and others subsequently added it to other articles). If the file has WikiProject banners on its talk page, you might also consider notifying the WikiProjects as well as a courtesy, particularly if the file is one being used in an obscure article which doesn't seem to be heavily edited; some WikiProjects, though, have set things up so that they are notified automatically when any pages marked with their banners end up at one of the WP:XFDs. Notifying the original uploader should be sufficient in most cases, and notifying anyone else might depend on your self-assessment of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an image with a confusing title: File:Light Blade weapon system.jpg, which in fact shows not Iron Beam, but Light Blade. How can I rename it? Loew Galitz (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Loew Galitz. You can't: I believe only an administrator or a WP:FILEMOVER can do so. You can, however, request that the file be renamed using {{Rename media}} if it meets any of the criteria listed in WP:FMV/W. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thx. Done. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Substitute int: messages. We're thinking about running a bot that will affect a couple thousand files. I don't think file namespace stuff has a noticeboard, so posting this in a couple conspicuous spots where I know file gurus hang out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Template:Image-warn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion, as this is a file handling template, and this is the noticeboard for informing file-involved users of such issues (now that other NBs have been closed down), I've left this message. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

All three files discussed on June 3 were deleted without formally closing the nominations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We have a bot called AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) that handles these situations. Some admins prefer to just delete the files and let the bot close the discussions. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure people are aware that Flickr now lets you see the license history of a photo as of today. This means we may be able to restore certain files that were deleted because we couldn't be sure they were freely licensed at some point in time. :-) Ixfd64 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I would make sure common sense is made...if one sees a file initially uploaded as CC-BY, and the minutes later (as opposed to months or years) its changed to CC-BY-NC, we can presume the uploaded made a mistake and quickly corrected it. Masem (t) 23:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the license history currently doesn't include timestamps. So it's difficult to tell whether the license was changed (say) a minute or a month after the upload. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The YouTube account for Warner Music New Zealand is (accidentally?) uploading copyrighted songs and their snippets under a "Creative Commons" license. Commons is currently hosting an entire Nicki Minaj performance of copyrighted songs, and parts of several music videos from Dua Lipa, Charlie Puth, and Cardi B (many other artists as also seen here). This sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion as the same channel is starting to host straight-up studio verisons of copyrighted songs under a CC license as well. My deletion request was closed on Commons but I wanted to bring it to this forum's attention if someone more familiar with that site wants to take this forward.--NØ 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is really intended for discussing things specifically related to the FFD process, and not really a noticeboard like WP:MCQ for discussing more general media copyright related matters. However, even if it wasn't or even if you asked about it at MCQ, there's not much anyone can do about this from here since Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects. Moreover, there's also probably not much anyone other than the artists themselves can do about since the YT channel does seem to be an official channel of the record company. If the company doesn't have the authority to release the content it's uploading under such a license or is making a mistake, then Wikipedia shouldn't even be allowing links to its YT channel like the one you included in your original post per WP:COPYLINK; none of us here, however, are really in a position to make that assessment (outside of really obvious cases like a fan account uploading the songs) and it's going to be assumed that (for better or worse) the company knows what it's doing when it comes to posting content on YT or other social media platforms. You could try contacting the company itself and asking them whether someone there has made a mistake. Likewise, you could try contacting the representative of one of the artists involved to ask something similar. It's quite possible that others (maybe even YT) have noticed what you've noticed and brought it to the company's attention. If the company hasn't stopped what it's doing or tried to correct what it has already done, then it's going to continue to be assumed that it knows what it's doing. Commons (and thus the WMF) is unlikely going to do anything until the company publicly admits or someone otherwise indicates that a mistake was made. If, for example, the company removes the CC licenses from content it has already uploaded to YT, Commons might see that as an indication that the company made a mistake, but a mistake probably isn't going to be assumed until something like that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There are quite a number of files hosted here on the basis that they are in the public domain since they were published anonymously in a 1938 UK publication, "Film Star Who's Who on the screen" This is problematic for two reasons, as firstly Commons discussions have concluded that these images are usually taken from films, voiding the anonymous publication claim; more importantly, they would all be copyrighted in the US anyway since the URAA restored their copyright until 2034. It must have come up somewhere, but I cannot find any hints on whether it is possible (or advisable) to nominate more than one file for deletion at the same time, as it is on Commons. Or would that make it too difficult to assess potential non-free uses? Felix QW (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW: There are instructions at the top of the main FFD page on how to nominate multiple files for discussion in the "2. Create its FFD subsection". Bascially, what you do is nomintate one file for discussion using {{Ffd2}} and then add others using {{Ffd2a}}. If you use the |header= for the "Ffd2" template, you'll be able to change the name of the thread header from a file name to something else (e.g. "Film Star Who's Who on the screen files"). When you complete the "Ffd2" template, just add the name of the first file you want to discuss, and add the name of that file's uploader in the |uploader= parameter, but give the reasons why all of the files need to be discussed in the |reason= paramater. When you've done that, click "Show preview". If everything is OK, add the remaining files using the "Ffd2a" template. Click "Show preview" again and if everything looks OK, you can cut out the "Ffd2" templates, click "Publish changes", edit the thread, paste the "Ffd2" templates back into the thread right below the syntax for the first file (but above the reason), click "Show preview" and then finally click "Publish changes". I don't think there's a limit on the number of files that can be discussed at once, but the more there are the harder they might be to discuss; in addition, you can only use {{Ffd notice multi}} for 26 files at a time. Multi-file nominations tend to be easier to deal with if you break them up into smaller groups (e.g. by uploader, by reason, by time period, by format), particulary when you're talking about 10 or more files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explanation! I'll probably make an FfD request just for the orphaned ones first, as they should be straightforward. Felix QW (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)