Archives

Archive 1 (before Mar 2005) Archive 2 (Mar 2005 – Aug 2005) Archive 3 (Aug 2005 – Jun 2006) Archive 4 (Jun 2006 – Feb 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Tewfik is incorrect. This topic is discussed further here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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