Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Ok, I noticed this page has reached over 100kb in size. With the amount the community has grown, the number of files that have been uploaded has increased a lot. But, since we made rulings in the past about images and other things, like the Commons, the amount of images being IFD'd is increasing 10 fold. What I wish to suggest is to have a format like what WP:FA does. What we do is that for each new day, a page is created. It will be called [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Foo]]. What we do is on each page, we place the heading === Foo ===. On each page, the listing of images will procede as normal. However, to include the page on here, it will be added as {{Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Foo}}. This will reduce the size of the page and possible edit conflicts. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A benefit of that scheme is that we could easily start archiving nominations here. The only problem is that someone would have to create the appropriate day subpage every day. It would be slightly non-obvious, and people might mess it up. Anyway, let's give it a try for a week and see how it goes. dbenbenn | talk 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I got reverted when I tried it out, so what we can do is start it tomorrow. Plus, I do not mind creating the pages daily. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The first page is at [1]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to run a straw poll regarding the possibility of listing 50 images, en masse, from {{unknown}}, every week, as a means of dealing with the gigantic size of the category? JesseW 21:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I personally think that if the source is unknown and it is never used, it should be killed on the spot. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's not an orphan, it should go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Coffee 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No objection here; just don't list non-orphans. Note there was some trouble around February with User:Quadell doing the same thing. Apparently a photo belonging to a Wikimedia Foundation board member had no info, and got deleted. dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You could also list a metric assload of images at Special:Unusedimages. I checked a few weeks ago, and there are about 40000 images there. O_O" Coffee 18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo hinted on IRC that we could start speedying images that are not used and not sourced, even if we tell folks to source it. But we should only do that if the image is not being used. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the pile of bad images too. A bot could change the unknown template to an unknown-delete-week|September 9 template warning of forthcoming deletion, then sweep back through in a week and delete those images which haven't been updated/fixed. An appropriate Category would allow review. (SEWilco 20:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

With the many images that we are now dealing with, and not too many folks are helping us with IFD or wanting to join IFD, a bot really sounds good right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, some automatic assistance would be extremely helpful, but perhaps a good start would be to change the format of the listings on IFD. Checking if an image can be deleted is very tedious; in the worst case (GFDL images moved to Commons), one has to bring up the image here, find the image on the Commons if there is no ((NowCommons)) tag, make sure all past revisions have been moved to commons, and make sure the most recent uploader (or all uploaders?) has been notified, and only then can such an image be deleted (correct me, if I'm wrong about this, please). Most of these checks are completely routine and could be carried out by a bot. If we don't trust the bot with deletion, it could at least flag images that pass all the criteria and can be deleted immediately. Alternatively, the admins' job would be easier if the listings contained links to the uploader's talk page and any other pages that may need to be checked prior to deletion. Or relaxing some of the procedures would also save time: for example, I wouldn't mind if images can be deleted without notifying the uploader if they are preserved somewhere; e.g., if it's simple renaming or a move to the Commons, where no information is lost and deletion can easily be undone. --MarkSweep✍ 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that informing the uploader should be more of an optional courtesy rather than a requirement... It isn't required to inform the creators of pages that their submissions are listed at AFD/VFD or at any other Wikipedia process. Besides, it rarely makes a difference as to whether the image is deleted or not. And it would make it much easier on admins. Coffee 05:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The original motivation for this was that image deletion is permanent, whereas articles can be undeleted. However, in many cases that's not an issue: there are a number of cases (e.g. if an image is listed here as OB) where no information is lost by deletion, and others (e.g. UE) where we presumably don't care if information is lost. --MarkSweep✍ 07:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea for changing the IFD process to hopefully make it simpler and more robust. Currently, a person that wants a file deleted must tag the file with {{ifd}}, then come to this page and list it. I think it's possible to combine these in just one step:

Place on the image page: {{subst:ifd|reason why image should be deleted}}.

This would produce the following tag:

This file is marked for deletion. The given reason is: reason why image should be deleted If you don't want the file deleted, please vote against its deletion on its talk page. Do not remove this notice while the question is being considered. For more information about the deletion process, see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.

The category would be modified to reflect the day the image was tagged. Rather than putting it in Category:Images and media for deletion, the text on the template would be changed to:

[[Category:{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}} {{CURRENTDAY}} images and media for deletion]].

This translates to Category:2024 June 6 images and media for deletion, which would be a subcategory of Category:Images and media for deletion. When the deleting admin comes along to delete 7-day old images, he goes through the category listing.

Objections and discussion would be discussed on the image's talk page. It should not be too much of an extra hassle for the deleting admin, since there are rarely objections (of the 100+ images listed on August 27, only one has an objection). Besides, the admin would have to go to the talk page to delete it along with the file anyway.

Pros:

• Easier to list a file for deletion, so perhaps more people would make the effort.
• Images can not be tagged without being listed, as there are now (like this).
• Archived discussion on kept files is preserved on file's talk page.
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion would not be massively long

Cons:

• Archived discussion on deleted files will not be preserved. (But then again, we didn't have archived discussions until two weeks ago anyway)

This seems to me a more elegant process than the current one. Tell me what you think, or if there are any pitfalls I haven't considered. Coffee 15:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The category listing only displays the first character of the sorting name, so everything would be under "2" - although that's not such a big deal, admins could see the end themselves if the IFD tag included the date tagged. Or a bot could, every midnight, create a placeholder page called "3 September 2005 begins here" and sorted to be before all the 3 Sep entries. Also, use of the month name would lead to "February" being sorted before "January" - change that to a number. ~~ N (t/c) 15:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The name of the category should end with the date, so all the entries are grouped together when displayed in alphabetical order. (SEWilco 02:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

This has come up a couple times over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. The big problem is that there's no way to to lock in the specific date - it'll change with every edit to the image page. There's no mechanism for a template to permanently keep the date it was added, even if you try to do clever things with <includeonly> tags and constructions like {{su{{{1}}}bst:CURRENTDAY}}. While it's less of a concern for image pages than it is for articles, image pages do get edited while they're on IFD, for example to add fair use rationales. —Cryptic (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

How about requiring the lister to put something like {{ifd|reason|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} }}? ~~ N (t/c) 17:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That's technically feasible, but I'm not sure it's socially feasible. There's enough people around that don't follow directions well that I'd be concerned about nominations being lost when someone puts a bare {{ifd}} on it and stops, like the coat of arms TheCoffee points out.

On the other hand, if I can figure out why Template:If doesn't work anymore, we should be able to deal with the second argument being left out entirely - the pages will be sorted into the correct categories if the parameter is given, and into a Category:Images for deletion not sorted into proper category or such if it isn't. The scheme will break entirely, though, if someone adds the parameter in the wrong order, like {{ifd|reason|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}, unless the tagger happens to notice that his category is a redlink. —Cryptic (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Grumble. {{If}} doesn't do what I thought it did; it checks for a parameter that's explicitly blank, like {{ifd|date=}}, and according to m:Help:Template, there isn't any way to make a template to find entirely omitted parameters. Since categories don't parse if they have brackets in them, constructions like [[Category:Images and media for deletion {{{2}}}]] don't work, either. The best solution I've found is to use the date parameter as a category sort key, like [[Category:Images and media for deletion|{{{2}}}]]; template calls without the parameter will then be sorted under {, while the rest will be sorted (in order) under 2. It won't separate them by date in the category, and it's still no help for folks who put year/month/day in the wrong order or forget the subst:. It's a pity that ~~~~~ changes according to your preferences. —Cryptic (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever seen anyone with a non-default ~~~~~, though? I think that's a great idea - except it starts with the hour. ~~ N (t/c) 20:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

All the time. Examples: Joy Stovall Uncle G —Cryptic (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Above was mentioned that the timestamp would be reset whenever the image description was edited. I don't see that as much of a problem. As long as changes are being made to the description, the deletion-triggering condition is more likely to be fixed. Is it important if some images take an extra week or an extra two months before the voting concludes? (SEWilco 02:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

For that matter, anyone could lock in the ending date by using subst:. Images tagged without subst: may have a shifting deletion date if there are certain types of interest in the image. (SEWilco 02:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

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

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

One user has listed a number of images in pdf that he uploaded. The links can be found at User talk:GordonWattsDotCom#Notes to Self. Are these allowed? If not, can they be speedied? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they are allowed. They are covered under the "other media" for deletion. But if he uploaded them and now wants them gone, and no one objects, they can be speedied. I have deleted .ogg files before from here and from CSD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

I've generated a report at User:TheCoffee/Orphan images that lists orphan images by user. There's currently a huge number of unused orphan images, hopefully this will make it easier to purge unnecessary, unloved images. For instance, yesterday I informed mav of his many orphan images, and listed about 200 of them en masse. Coffee 14:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this might cause more problems, especially for good users. Sometimes, you need to upload a few images before placing them into articles. Also, sometimes trolls and vandals like user Hipocrite above immediately attempt to delete hard work. I understand trying to get rid of all those images, but it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Noitall 14:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to throw away the baby... On the contrary, these lists could help coordinate with uploaders to make sure we keep what's needed and delete what's not. For example, I could tell User:Gerald Farinas that he has 59 images currently not linked to or used on any article, and ask him if any images should be put to use rather than deleted. Coffee 16:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made an "old discussions" section on the page where we can simply link to subpages of discussions older than 7 days and waiting to be processed, rather than using transclusion to include them on the page. This could help keep down the size of the page, especially since the backlog often goes back pretty far. Coffee 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, are there any objections to shortening the waiting period from one week to 5 days? There are rarely any discussions on image deletions, and almost never discussions that last more than 5 days. Having things processed faster might encourage more people to bother participating. The waiting period is also 5 days over at AfD. Coffee 17:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No comments? That's odd. I'll go ahead and make the change then... Coffee 04:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There's been an addition to the criteria for speedy deletion:

"Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded."

I can't find the discussion that made this rule, but it must be legitimate since Jimbo himself was deleting images by this rule. Coffee 15:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Coffee, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23398569. Zach (Sound Off) 18:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure what (if anyting) to do with these. The {{Stamp}} template says that fair use of stamp images should be used to ilustrate articles about the stamp, not things pictured on the stamp. However pretty much all of them are in fact used mostly it ilustrate bios of the people pictured on the stamp (and I can't recall seeing a single article about an actual stamp so far). I nominated a couple for deletion, but I'd like some second opinions before I do any major house cleaning in Category:Fair use stamp images. To complicate matters some of the stamps might be in the public domain, but without further information I see no alternative but to treat them as copyrighted "fair use" images as the "stamp" tag makes them out to be, in wich case a whole bunch of them should probably be deleted as orphands (someone uploaded a online stamp collection that "might" be PD) or invalid "fair use". Any thoughts? --Sherool 23:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Some stamps are in the public domain, but it depends on who made it when. The US said that stamps before 1978? are in the PD. Zach (Sound Off) 23:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I was "afraid" of that, so quite a few of the images in the category called "Fair use stamp images" might in fact be PD. Soulds like we could use a new tag for PD-stamps, although I guess when in doubth it's up to the uploader to "prove" that the picture can be legaly used beyond the "fair use" rule. --Sherool 23:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google search could do it. There are many websites who keep track of what stamp was issued when. Zach (Sound Off) 23:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah found a few, problem is none of the two stamps I nominated are from the US and I have not been eable to find any simmilar rules that release Canadian and Indian postage stamps into PD. Well actualy the Canadian one is defenently under copyright, it's from 1996 and the site it was taken from says that any PD material (expired copyright) will be clearly labeled as such (and the stamp was not). The Indian stamp was issued in 1969 I found no indication that they have released any stamps into PD, I did find however rules regarding the publication of stamp images though, and they are very strict:
http://www.indiapost.gov.in/Netscape/Philately.html#Conditions%20for%20reproduction

Re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps which may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character. Such reproduction should however, be only in black. If stamps are to be produced in colour for publicity purposes, prior permission of the Director General of Posts must be obtained. To avoid similaritywith the postage , such reproduction must be distinctively in smaller or larger sizes than the actual stamp and must be without perforation on the edges. Further, across bar will also be placed on one- corner of the stamp, obliterating the denomination. It must be noted that reproduction of the stamp in colour of the actual size of the stamp with perforation of the edges may be deemed to be taken as production of the actual stamp"

Dunno if such rules have any effect under US law though, but defenently no PD. --Sherool 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

{{PD-stamp}} is used for public domain stamps (including old US stamps). I took a quick look at the fair use stamps category a while ago. While I re-tagged a few images, most of the stuff in there appears to be sufficiently modern that it's likely not PD. JYolkowski // talk 17:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

D'oh, I didn't even notice we had a tag for PD-stamps, my bad :-O --Sherool 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

For an Indian stamp, it cannot be used with the perforations and the denomination visible. so, can't it be cropped at the edges to remove the perforation and can't the denomination be darkened? Also, would it fit fair use if the bio talks about the issuance of stamp and the image caption also talks of the same? especially if there is a sub-section talking abt the stamp exclusively? (This can also contain a part of the citation which is typically PD). --Gurubrahma 10:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've also gone over the fair use stamps category a couple times, so I'm relatively certain that no PD images are left (for Commonwealth countries crown copyright expiring after 50 years is typical). Some images may be of use philatelically for articles not yet written - I'll note these on the images' pages. Everything in User:Stan Shebs/Gallery/Philately fair use is also intended for philatelic articles. An image illustrating that some topic was depicted on a stamp, as a secondary illustration to an article, seems acceptable. Given how stamp designers twist and manipulate images for design purposes, one doesn't want to rely on those as topic illustrations anyway. Stan 13:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of images recently uploaded that are orphans. Are they fair game if I put them up for ifd the same day? An example would be Image:0022.jpg. --Bash 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ADDED: Image:E6oghj.jpg is also in this group. --Bash 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The second image you mentioned has a copyright statement at the bottom, so I've slapped a copyvio tag on it. Stoive 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah they are fair game, although if it's a "good" image it might be better to warn the uploader and put it in {{no source notified}}, although considering the 8000+ item backlog for no source images (not so much in the notified variant) listing them on IFD is defenently faster if you want to get rid of them fast. --Sherool 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that images once deleted are lost for ever would mean circumspection for OR pictures. I may upload an image to use it in an article a couple of days later. I don't think tagging an image as OR the same day is a fair deal - a week may be better. For images falling under other reasons, the same day tagging is perfectly acceptable IMHO. --Gurubrahma 17:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Sello republica espanola.jpg appears to have been recently deleted. I can't imagine why: the official seal of a government is never subject to limitations on use in a reference work. If someone can explain what is going on here, could you please respond here and ping me on my talk page, since watchlisting this very busy page isn't much use for seeing if there has been a response. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless the name is a mispelling, I went to the upload log [2] and from what it told me, it was never uploaded. The deletion log told me the same thing. [3] Zach (Sound Off) 17:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote against the deletion of the Angry Bloo image. NoseNuggets 2:15 AM US EDT Oct 4 2005

On the site it also states "All editorial content and graphics on this site are protected by U.S. copyright and international treaties and may not be copied without the express permission of Vishwa Nirmala Dharma, which reserves all rights." and "identify Vishwa Nirmala Dharma as the source. "

Shane

This is getting weird. The page for Oct. 8 isn't showing up. Purging doesn't work. What will get it to show up? --Bash 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Damn, I'm an idiot. Never mind. --Bash 22:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

ARE YOU BLIND?

It's not a copyvio, did you ever notice that big fat promotional tag on the bottom of the page?

Hi Karrmann, I assume you're talkin about Image:Stratus.jpg? The tag says it is a promotional picture, but it does not indicate a source. We need to know who created the picture, and with what purposes, for wikipedia to be able to use the picture under "fair use". So if you downloaded the picture from internet, can you please give us the address where you found it; and if you got it from another source, please tell us what it was.

And please do not remove {{ifd}} tags from the description page before the problems with the image have been solved; and don't remove {{nosource}} tags unless you also tell us the source, as you did at Image:FordContour.jpg. Eugene van der Pijll 14:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the {{promotional}}, because fair use is invalid without a source. Furthermore, I've retagged the image as having no source, and because I first tagged it no source (removal of tag by Karrman notwithstanding) October 13th, I used that date. At any rate, no one will be prematurely removing the ifd or no source, because I'm watching the page. Superm401 | Talk 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A source has been added, but its a consumer guide, so not a genuine promo... Justinc 16:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

When an image used by vitute of a fair-use claim has been orphaned, you can tag it with {{or-fu}} or the long form Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced (talk · links · edit). If the image has been replaced by an improved or better licensed image, you can use {{or-fu-re|NEWIMAGE}} or it's long form Template:Orphaned fairuse replaced (talk · links · edit). Both of these templates place the image in Category:Orphaned fairuse images, and both make the image eligable for speedy deletion after 7 days. DES ^(talk) 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Is it possible to have a template like {{tfd}} to be visible on articles so that readers can tell which images are nominated? Is not too desirable that people discover the nomination only by red links on articles, or by edits to articles with edit summaries saying the images have no source and already deleted. — Instantnood 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We could insert boilerplate into the image captions, like at WP:PUI. (Or we could overwrite the image with something saying "This image is listed on WP:IFD, please go there to comment, blah blah blah", but that isn't really workable.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Boilerplate to captions is not quite workable either, if the image is linked to many articles. — Instantnood 05:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I got the impression that IFD is for getting rid of images that are simply unneeded. They probably shouldn't be listed here if they're used in articles. Coffee 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I have created {{ifdc}} to be added to captions beneath images on articles. — Instantnood 15:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Several times I've seen someone list an image for deletion in part or in whole because its an orphan when the nominator is the very one who just removed it from the article(s). This seems misleading to me, to say the least. It's just as if someone had listed an article on AfD and justified it in part by the fact that nothing linked to it, when they themselves had just removed all the links. Has this issue been discussed before? Postdlf 02:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. If they remoe the image from one or more articles, they are required to list the articles on the IFD nomination. Failure to do so automatically voids the nomination. Superm401 | Talk 04:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

*IF* we spot they have done so. We currently have no way of finding out where an image used to be used! Plugwash 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

True. Superm401 | Talk 04:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Any plan to fix this loop hole? For example, fix the software to automatically save the "what links here" information for all images in a monthly archive. The archive can be kept in a way that only the unlinking is recorded (save only the deltas). Before an image is deleted, check in the archive where the image was linked to before it became an orphan and verify if the unlinking is just vandalism. Kowloonese 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm sure most people doing the deleting are competent but there seems to be at the very least a couple of incompetent fools (polite description, that. They could be described as a lot worse) at work. So far this month I have had to

• trace back images I uploaded under GFDL to WP because some pillock deleted them even though their status was unambiguously clear and stated explicitly.

• just in case you are wondering why I did not come here to defend the image here, the person responsible didn't bother to notify me of the proposed deletion. But then given that the images were explicitly declared to user created images being released to WP I doubt if the deleter bothered to nominate them either. If s/he had everyone would have seen that they were GFDL images.

• clean up articles where people deleting articles never bothered to fix the mess they left behind in broken links to no longer existing images. (1 feature article I stumbled into some weeks ago was a complete mess, with 9 deleted images, none of them removed from the text.)

• trace back images from other sites that copied WP because some asshole (and that is a polite name for them) had deleted perfectly valid images whose only problem was that the downloader, possibly a newbie, had simply put the wrong category on them. A five second check of the original website stated on the images showed that they were perfectly OK, just in the wrong category.

• cleaned up the mess after people (maybe only one person) deleted images because they were in the commons but never bothered to make sure the commons image was linked to the articles that were using them.

Hosts of images are being deleted

1. without the original downloader being notified, even though the downloader may well be able to supply any missing information and make deletion unnecesary.
2. because some users don't seem to realise that images downloaded a couple of years ago weren't required to supply all the information we now need. All they need to do is check with the original downloader to see if they can get the information, or do a quick google search and find the information themselves.
3. because the deleter clearly doesn't know the laws on fairuse, crown copyright, etc.

The bottom line should be that every user must be notified in every case if an image is nominated for deletion. If the user is not notified then the image should never ever be deleted. Looking at talk pages it seems as if very few people are been notified. If people aren't notified, or if perfectly valid images are deleted, or if pages aren't fixed after deletions, then it undermines the whole credibility of this process, and those people who are being careful and are notifying and are cleaning up after them can end up getting flak from people because of the screw-ups of the incompetent few. If you are going to delete stuff then please please do it properly, to images that need deletion, after you have contacted the downloader and after you have that there is no other alternative. Incompetent deletions made Wikipedia look bad, leave articles a mess and piss off genuine users who have been careful to only download legal images only to find someone else's incompetence has screwed up their work. FearÉIREANN 06:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This has happened to me several times. I uploaded some pictures that I took myself and granted GFDL to wikipedia. Then months later, some fools replaced the GFDL images with a copyrighted image. Meanwhile, the unlinked image was deleted because it was orphaned. Then a little later, the copyrighted image was deleted due to copyright violation. The end result is that the article loses a legitimate image over time. I normally don't save the pictures if they were taken just for wikipedia uploading. And I don't bother repeating the effort either because the opportunity to capture such image is gone, or it is pointless to contribute but got trashed by some fools. This big loop hole needs to be plugged. Somehow, wikipedia needs to track some kind of unlinking history. Otherwise, this can be easily abused by the vandals. Kowloonese 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I put an image for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 November 30. It shows up on that subpage, but not on the main Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion in the November 30 section. Should it? I can't seem to edit that section directly, so I assume it's supposed to update automatically from the subpage somehow. If so, the page should probably say that (and maybe explain how it works), because as it is it's not completely clear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind — it's there now. (There was just a delay, for some reason.) It still might be good to note on the page that additions to the subpage will eventually show up on the main one, and if the delay is common that might be noted too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The main page shows the full contents of the subpage automatically (it includes them using template syntax). However, it sometimes takes a little while to update (for caching reasons). To make it do so immediately, you can purge the cache. There was a link to do so on the page, but it was needlessly confusing. I've added a more intuitive version using standard syntax (see top of page, in bold). Superm401 | Talk 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes more sense. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was browsing randomly, and I came across the Autofellatio article, which features a rough drawing of a man fellating himself. Does this really belong on Wikipedia? I know that if I were doing research in a library or public place, I could be in very deep trouble for displaying such an image. I am not familiar with the image deletion process, but I think something should be done. Avengerx 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a long and checkered history with regard to images for this article. Suffice to say, the drawing is much less objectionable than other images that have been used to illustrate this article. Note that Wikipedia is not censored, so I'd say the chances you can get the image removed from the article are close to 0%. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if you're researching for "autofellatio" in a library or public place, you're pretty much asking for it. Coffee 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The autofellatio "article" was the site of a broaching experiment from which a more or less clear consensus evolved that photographs of sexual acts should not be linked inline. The concensus for drawings was not so formed, mostly through relentless campaigning. - Nunh-huh 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new reason, NI (No image) to describe a class of problem p[icked up by WP:UI and which is described there as follows:

"There's a class of issue new (to me, at least) which is that of blank image description pages which have no link to an image, but for which there is an identically named image on the commons. An example (at least until it is deleted) is Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Day (1881).jpg. The symptom of this problem is that the page has no File history section, and does have the This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons infobox. The correct course of action is to list the image description page on WP:IFD with a reason of NI (no image)." --Tagishsimon (talk)

Couldn't things like that just be speedied? It seems like a common sense thing to me, and it wouldn't help to have a 5-day waiting period on IFD. Coffee 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I think that would count as a "Corrupt or empty image". dbenbenn | talk 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course they can be speedied - not just orphan image descriptions but images as well. Just use {{db|now on commons}} or {{db|replaced by [[...]]}} if the name is different. (The nominator for speedy should check that all articles are using the right version, that the commons version appears to have a valid licence, etc.) -- RHaworth 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Images can not be speedied because a version is on commons. WP:CSD says "This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with {{NowCommons|Image:newname.ext}} or {{NowCommonsThis}} instead." Superm401 - Talk 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Looking over Kingofsuap's contributions, all he has done is uploaded a bunch of pdfs listed as images. I plan to block him if he doesn't respond in any way to my requests for an explanation. However, I wonder if I can speedy delete all his images. All the images before Image:R24.pdf (when I told him that they may be deleted) are listed as copyrighted, and I will remove, but after that, they are all GFDL. Would those require a full IfD discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media. Superm401 | Talk 02:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All these pdfs have been deleted -Nv8200p talk 15:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to inform suspicious uploads by people that are using the GFDL tags. User:Oahc has uploaded Image:Laura Breckenridge.jpg (clearly can see the Zap2it.com tagged which I was suspicious. All of their images are copyrighted and restrict usage.), Image:Devon Aoki.jpg, Image:Village.chapel.1866.jpg, etc., Also, I suspect Oahc is User:Xtremeruna21 and User:Enitsirhc because they used the same file name structure ("Image:My principal, Steve!.jpg" by Enitsirhc and "Image:My english teacher, Sue!.jpg" by Xtremeruna21, copyright terms structure, and using GFDL tags. --J. Nguyen 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I stopped chicken out and ask the person. I read through the Zap2It's Terms of Service]. They are cleary not using GFDL agreement. I will dispute the possible unfree image of Image:Laura Breckenridge.jpg later this week. I will investigate the Devon Aoki image when I have the time. --J. Nguyen 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

While cleaning out old "no source" images and such I ocationaly come across images with several month old {{ifd}} tags, that have aparently never been listed. Some might also have been kept, but never had the tag removed for whatever reason (simmilar problems with WP:PUI too). Maybe it would be an idea to get a bot to either list or de-tag old stuff from Category:Images and media for deletion, not sure how big a problem it is though, as I said I've only stumbled across such orphands ocationaly. Never done an extensive survey on the contents of the category. --Sherool (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I can easily get my bot to find these, since all the hard parts are already done. I'm not, however, willing to look at them all individually (eg, to see if any can be speedied, or whether to swap {{ifd}} for {{or-fu}} or such). Let me know how often you want it run, whether the tags should be removed or the images listed, and whether to list them directly on the daily subpage here or on some other page for triage by someone else. —Cryptic (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, almost forgot all about this. How about doing a couple of test runs fist. Just do a report on a user subpage listing the images that are tagged with the IFD template but not listed here, so we can let humans sort though it first. Once the "backlog" is sorted out update the list every few days and see if it's a recuring problem. We can make a more informed desission then. Sounds like a plan? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sherool (talk • contribs) 03:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Crypticbot/Orphaned ifds. —Cryptic (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started going through them, removing completed ones. If you don't like that protocol, let me know. Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Most do seem to be fairly clear deletion candidates. Can the bot figure out who tagged it for IFD and what edit summary they used? If so it could just list these on the current IFD day noting that "User X tagged as IFD on Y giving edit summary Z", then notify the tagger (telling him to please complete the process next time) and the uploader. If that's too tricky then it should at least notify the uploader. If no further comments are made on the image it will be up to the closing admin to descide wether to keep or delete the image (or possebly extend the listing to seek further comment on it). --Sherool (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrrrm. Yes, I should be able to do that; image pages don't usually have too many revisions to dig through. It'll be a bit, though. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the bot needs to be that smart. Given a list of orphans, it's easy enough for a human to deal with them. User:Superm401 and I dealt with all the images listed at User:Crypticbot/Orphaned ifds yesterday. It would be nice if the bot could update that page every week or so. (Perhaps move it to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Orphaned ifds.) dbenbenn | talk 08:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I've scheduled it to run at 12:00 (UTC) every Sunday, at the page title you suggested. —Cryptic (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

...and it's got a bunch of extras because the page for the 19th hadn't been added to WP:IFD yet; I hadn't realized this was still done by hand here. It's rerunning now, so that's not a problem, but do you folks want me to add the daily subpage links to the main page automatically at midnight? —Cryptic (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes please! And can you create the subpage when adding it, too? Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 21, for example, needs to start with == February 21 ==. dbenbenn | talk 15:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It should start updating tonight. I'm not currently creating the subpages from a seed for ease of watchlisting (see Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/Seed for a fuller explanation), nor including a navigation bar (as at here and here on TFD). but either of these can be turned on if there's a demand for them. —Cryptic (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I just want to be clear; if a user uploads an image of himself/herself it is grounds for deletion right? (UE) Is it speedy able? (provided it's only used on there user page) Thanks, Flying Canuck 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming a correct license, I think we should be able to speedy these, after an appropriate lag period--say, thirty or forty years--in case they become notable in that time. Demi ^T/_C 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there official word, or even consensus, about this anywhere? My understanding is that user pages do not have to be "encyclopedic," whatever that might mean in the context, and that absent disruption users were generally free to put what they want on user pages. It would appear to follow an image meant to be used on user pages does not have to be encyclopedic, and unless some other grounds exist for deleting it (copyvio &c) it should stay. Smerdis of Tlön 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace (user pages are OK)." --Interiot 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This was my understanding as well. A couple years ago, I uploaded a small cartoon (Image:Ihcoyc.JPG) for my user page — it's currently in use on another as well — which I made myself from a PD image that appeared on Encyclopédie; had seen other original images on user pages. It was nominated for deletion Feb. 7 on the grounds that it was unencyclopedic and did not appear in an article. Wanted to make sure that I had done nothing wrong here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not meet any criterion for speedy deletion. It can be nominated for deletion on WP:IFD, although it would be unlikely to succeed. It is quite acceptable for users to upload images of themselves to use on their user page, provided it is licensed appropriately. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about unencyclopedic, but free, images of things that are not of "you, friends or family," then, per Demi's image? Since it's not explicitly allowed in policy (as it's not of "you, friends or family") but it's free and used in a user page, is it that we go ahead and overlook policy to allow users a little more expression in user pages and templates? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My take on that is that "UE" apply to stuff that doesn't belong in the ensyclopedia, and that is not used in a "reasonable" way on a userpage. So A picture of me and my family posting at some famous landmark would not be acceptable for use in the article about the landmark (should have a "plain" photo of just the landmark instead if at all possible). However it would be fine to use a few such images on my userpage. However if someone is just uploading theyr whole family photo album I'd say deleting most of them as "unensyclopedic" or just plain WP:NOT would be in order. Orphanded user images should be fair game too, if they are not going to at least put it on theyr userpage delete it, Wikipedia is not a file hosting service. I've seen people who for example use Wikipedia to host theyr forum signature and related pictures, and what's worse there was one guy who uploaded all the graphics for his commercial site and hotlinked it off Wikipedia, to save bandwidth I guess (needles to say all his images where deleted and I believe he was banned too after trying to re-upload them). --Sherool (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what the deletion policy was for someone uploading multiple copies of the same photo? I noticed 4 identical thumbnails on the Special:Newimages page. Special:Contributions/Veronicaluis was the user to do this. --Andrew c 03:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. the criteria for speedy deletion allow the deletion of redundant images. I got rid of the duplicates. Superm401 - Talk 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Be VERY carefull you aren't distroying the version history of images when doing this sort of thing though. I can't count the number of times when i've wished i could revert an image (usually a poor recreation attempt from the SVG brigade) but can't as the original was under a different name and has therefore since been deleted. Plugwash 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This category lists images with the {{copyrighted}} tag, which says "this image... will soon be deleted without further warning". Despite this, I found images that have been tagged with this for... a long time. Shouldn't the warning live up to its promise? KramarDanIkabu 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the tag again. It says only that images with the tag uploaded after May 19, 2005 can be deleted on sight. dbenbenn | talk 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded several images after May 19, most of which I tagged with {{copyrighted}}. None of them have been deleted. KramarDanIkabu 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on WP:PROD, if we had a tag like {{PRODIMAGE|Reason for deletion}}; we could produce a page like this but for images, that people could review. It seems the vast bulk of image deletins goes uncontested, so there's little need for listing them on a discussion page. --Rob 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, at the very least we should have date based categories, like no source and no copyright. The current system is unwieldy. - cohesion^t 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This image has been deleted. Because the search index has not been updated since, I was able to find out that it had been listed here:

Wikipedia:Untagged images/2005dec13-36

It was an example background of a search box, to search, you guessed it, Wikipedia. I know that officially the Wikipedia logo (on which it was based) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation, but I didn't think it would be such an issue as to get the image deleted without warning. Also the one who deleted the image should have checked the "what links here" button and orphaned it first. Shinobu 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An editor King of the Dancehall (talk · contribs), has uploaded hundreds of images under license tags that are obviously not correct. I have warned the user, and added speedy tags to many of these, but there are many more images to check, See [4]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently tagged two images for deletion per the following guidelines: WP:NOT - "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted." Example reason from the IFD page - "UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia." Following the procedure listed on the Images for Deletion page, I tagged Image:Playing.jpg and Image:PoodleM1.jpg for image deletion, added the notices to the user's talk page, and listed the images for discussion under April 7 on the IFD page.

The user then removed the notice from his/her talk page with an edit summary of "rvv" [5], removed the tags from the images [6] and [7], and then removed the entry from the April 7 section of the IFD page [8]. What is the purpose of IFD if the uploader may remove ifd tags at will? 65.127.231.10 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anons don't get any respect here. Also, the images show that they are being used on personal user pages, which doesn't fall under the "unencylcopedic" reasoning; users are allowed to have some personal pictures (how many I don't know). Plus you upset an admin. So, those are the reasons why your nominations were removed. But SlimVirgin could have at least informed you why they were removed... - Hbdragon88 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Originally posted on WP:VPP but also posting here as this is where those responsible for deletion of images hang out Plugwash 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Often when a new version of an image is made it is for various reasons (such as its a hybrid image or a different format or just modified enough to deserve a new name) uploaded under a new name to here or commons. Then the original gets deleted as OB or OR. The result is we are losing a lot of information on the history of our images and quite probablly violating the GFDL too. Plugwash 21:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Violation of a Wikipedia guideline does not mean an image has to be deleted. Violation of a Wikipedia policy is grounds for deletion. The guideline says "should" not must. Strawberryfire also showed a desire to keep the logo. So I see no reason or concensus that the image need be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I usually delete images from Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Is it okay if I delete those images listed here too, eventhough the guideline says a minimum of five days? / Fred-Chess 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why not. Jkelly 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've deleted the images nominated by User:Bkell and all train images uploaded by User:Our Phellap (nominated by Rory) . / Fred-Chess 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Under the instructions of how to nominate an image for deletion, it says:

If you remove an image from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.

While there are a few conscientious editors who do this, this step has otherwise been all but ignored. This means that the pictures that survive the deletion process are often deleted anyway because they appear to be orphans. I've been the victim of this a couple of times, and seen it happen to others as well. Nominators often don't make a list of the articles the image was in because editing out an image (or just removing it), and then listing every page the image appeared on is very tedious, and so many just don't do it. But, there has already been an option in place for a long time that is much easier to use for the editor, and easy to reverse if the picture survives deletion: adding {{ifdc}} to the photos caption. Again though, too few use it. This method has four benefits: (1) it is simply a matter of copying and pasting it into the caption (requiring minimum editing), (2) it is already pre-formatted in the {{ifd}} template, so it is convenient to use, (3) it actually invites community review, and (4) if the photo survives deletion, the pages are still linked. It also has an added benefit that if the image doesn't survive deletion, the image and all traces of it can be properly deleted, because Wikipedia is peppered with articles that on the edit page have "edited-out images" that really were deleted ages ago, and these hidden notes throw off the formatting of the article.

Essentially, I'm proposing that the editing out method for images facing deletion be abolished, and the {{ifdc}} caption method become standard practice, which I think would be a win-win situation for everyone.--Esprit15d 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen several orphaned images without copyright problems, but I may not be able to link them at articles.--Jusjih 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have a question regarding the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg. The magazine is mentioned and used in her bio article since she worked as a model for them and the modeling agency that she is currently working for, where the picture comes from, is hyper-linked on the image page. Is it still ground for the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg to be deleted? Regards. ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

It needs a better source than a link to a page that doesn't contain the image. A promotional shot from her agency would be better than the magazine cover. Jkelly 01:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, that was my mistake.[9] I wasn't clear with my hyper-link. The link provided is her agency in Greece, Action Management is a modeling agency in Greece,[10], the models/actresses they represent even include international ones such as supermodel Adriana Karembeu[11], Christina Aguilera,[12] for her X-POSE perfume in Greece, Alina Puscau[13][14] and Ana Paula Arósio[15]. I'm sorry about that. Here is the direct link to Anastasia Perraki's portfolio with Action Management[16] I will hyper link it on the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg. Will this help? Should I just use a headshot from here.[17] Best Regards ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

That's a strange collection of images for an agency site. None of them have any information. Some of them look like they might be work-for-hire. I'd suggest writing to them specifying that you want the agency's promotional kit shot. Jkelly 01:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a legit agency, the official site of model Jurgita Jurksaite[18] varifies them so[19] as do other international modeling listing sites[20]. They are located at Ferekidou 14-16, Athens, Greece, their main link to the agency is here.[21], you have to clink on the Action Management logo to get into their site and view the different models. Modeling agencies are like that, they do not give out a lot of info on their models other then the basics: stats and photo shots. The German modeling agencies East West Models[[22]] and Unity Models[23]] as well as other Greek agencies such as Nothing but People[[24]] and the American ABC Model/Talent Management and the more known IMG Models[25], to name a few, are set up in similar fashions.

Its very commen for models/actors/singer/anyone marketable to usually have numerious agencies they work with, the issue being that they need to be represented by local agencies when working abroad, i.e. their own agencies back home might not have the proper working permits to work in certain countries so they form a partnership with local agencies. Henche the reason why Christina Aguilera used the Greek Action Management as a local agency to represent her in Greece when marketing her X-POSE perfume for the Greek market. Models usually have international listings of agencies for ths reason. ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

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

I just uploaded these NASA images

Image:Neptune triton.jpg, taken from this site:

[[26]]

and

Image:Small web.jpg, taken from this site:

[[27]].

I was wondering how to verify the source information. I assume they're out of copyright, since they're NASA images. Serendipodous 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As I just nominated X Vietnam (album) for deletion and one other user just voted for deletion, I would like to ask one thing. There is a fair use Image:Q-68.jpg at the article for deletion. Shall I nominate that fair use image for deletion now or later after the article is deleted and the image becomes orphaned?--Jusjih 14:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on such things. Assuming that the article is deleted, just tag the image with {{orfud}} and it will be placed into our image deletion category. Jkelly 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. The article X Vietnam (album) that I once nominated for deletion is now voted to be kept after its producer, sufficiently notable, has been noted, so I will not nominate Image:Q-68.jpg for deletion at this time (unless additional fair use rationale is required but missing).--Jusjih 12:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to delete Image:Kmegt.JPG; would IFD be the place to do it? --HappyCamper 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And why you would like to d othat? --Hunter 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't think the image is a proper rendition of what it is supposed to represent. --HappyCamper 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also a copyvio, as a derivative work of an unfreely-licensed image. I have tagged it as such. Jkelly 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case, I still have another question...if I find an image that doesn't particularily improve an article, is it still brought to IFD? --HappyCamper 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Jkelly 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :-) --HappyCamper 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A long time ago, before I knew how image resizing works on Wikipedia, I uploaded image:St Isaacs SPb large.jpg and image:St Isaacs SPb.jpg. These are two versions of the same image, with different resolutions. We should somehow delete the small one and replace it with the large one, but I don't know how best to go about it. --Smack (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about you upload the high-res one as Commons:Image:St Isaacs SPb.jpg, and I will delete the local copies? Jkelly 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. I thought it was on the commons already. Will do. --Smack (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see this template being used to tag certain images {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. Is this compatible with WP copyright policy? There is no statement about being able to use these images for commercial or non-commercial use. Can somebody clarify this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Any image so tagged that doesn't allow for commercial or derivative work should either be speedied (per WP:CSD I3) or brought here for deletion. Jkelly 16:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)