Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Has it been discussed whether or not a date navigation box could be put on the bottom of each daily page similar to the one currently used on the top? Personally, I think it could be slightly helpful. Especially on days when a ton of images get nominated.--Rockfang (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "orphan" is a wrong reason for deletion. What isn't in use now, may be used later. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a file is not used in any article is only relevant if non-free fair use of the file is claimed. NFCC#7 requires a non-free file to be used in at least one article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I must have missed that detail. That sounds fair enough. :) Debresser (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the name of each file nominated for deletion, there is the phrase "uploaded by [user name] (notify | contribs)". The wikitext for the "notify" link is: "[{{fullurl:User_talk:Dunmanhigh|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]". This link no longer works properly. Can someone knowledgeable fix it? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ffd2}} is fixed now - it was a set of template moves back in October that seem to have caused the problem. This fix will only work from now on - existing FfDs will still have the bad link - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work primarily on US military biographical articles, especially Medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed a huge number of files coming up recommended for deletion by a single user User:Damiens.rf. Upon further review it appears that nearly all of the files that this user is focusiing their attention on belong to one user, User:Marine 69-71. Due to the sheer volume of files that this user has submitted for deletion many of them are being automatically deleted because knowone argues them and given that he is submitting dozens a day I simply don't have the time to go through each and every one of them to argue points for or against. Although there are some that I agree should probably be deleted there are many that I do not. Since it appears to me that this Damiens user is using this file deletion process as a means to attack the Marine 69-71 user I refuse to vote either way on any of them and I recommend that Damiens be limited to files not uploaded by Marine 69-71. --Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through some of the images that User:Damiens.rf has put up for deletion, and the ones that I have looked at seem to be legitimate concerns about the copyright status of the images. I don't see that they are frivolous or abusive complaints. If I saw that most of the images reported by User:Damiens.rf were fraudulent or erroneous claims, then I could see your complaint. Which ones do you think should stay on wikipedia because their copyright status is properly documented? I could help out, but I didn't see anything blatant. I think a good use of your time would be, especially since you have an interest in US military articles, to defend those images that you believe to have a reasonable claim to staying on wikipedia, rather than just opting out of the process altogether and complaining here. The project page says this "To quote the non-free content criteria, 'it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof.' " - Chromatikoma (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this several times now. Files which come with a fair use rationale are removed from articles with the reason that a free use version must be available, then deleted with a speedy as they're now orphaned. To me this is gaming the system to use speedy and avoid a deletion review. I really think the time has come to come down and say this practise should be stopped. What is the community view on this. Justin talk 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is orphaned, it should be deleted. If a non-free image is used in an article in a way that does not meet our non-free content criteria, it should be removed. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is a bad thing; if a file can just be removed and deleted when it is not needed, it's quicker and less painful for all involved. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is very different from what I've observed, which is removing a file with a valid fair use rationale, then speedy deleting it as orphaned. These are files which are needed, provide significant contributions to articles but are being deleted outside of process because it is more convenient and avoids the need to justify deletion at review and having the arguments open to scrutiny. Its quite difficult to have a deletion overturned, because the image can no longer be seen in the context of the article. Justin talk 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the majoriy of cases, the lack of image in the article should be obvious- the article will appear incomplete without it. However, individual edits have to be justified, to- if the original removal was improper, so be it. Contact/admonish the user involved as per usual with regards to wayward edits. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case I am thinking of, the original improper speedy deletion was over turned at review, its currently being considered as a conventional deletion review and the admin involved tagged it again for speedy. But that aside, admonishing individuals is ignoring it as a more general problem for community discussion. Justin talk 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people are removing images that should not be removed, they are making an edit they should not be. It's as simple as that- trying to impy some kind of "general problem" is not particularly useful. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why you're attempting to close down any discussion before it starts? I happen to perceive it as a problem and would like to open it up to the community for dicussion. Justin talk 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question, I responded. What's wrong with what I said? What actually needs discussing here? You are complaining about the actions of specific users- this is not the place to discuss user conduct. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think an image is justified in an article, ask the admin who deleted it to restore it. If they don't agree that the image would be justified, but you still think it is, then file for a review at WP:DRV. Accepted, people won't be able to see it in situ; but typically the image itself will often still be visible at Google cache, and at DRV you should be able to fully explain what the image would add to the article, and how you would caption it, write about it, etc.

I'm not a fan of images being orphaned when a reasonable case could be made for them at WP:FFD -- particularly if the orphaning person knows that the removal decision is marginal; and certainly if somebody does object to the speedy, IMO the image should then always go to WP:FFD, so that they can get a hearing for their argument before the community.

But even if an image has been speedied, or orphaned and deleted, which you think shouldn't have, that's not the end of the world; my experience of WP:DRV has been that cases filed there do get a very reasonable and fair hearing (sometimes more so than at FFD). Jheald (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I suppose to some extent its down to perception. FFD in my experience gives things a fair hearing, whereas DRV is more of a mountain to climb. DRV tends to focus on process, rather than the arguments for/against deletion. I tend to agree with the comment that a disputed speedy should go to FFD, my experience is that there is a reluctance to do so. Justin talk 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Files for deletion) containing the list of FFD "common abbreviations" like "AU" or "OR". Yes, non-regulars may need help understanding those, but they need that help when reading the pages, not when editing them. Having the acronyms in the edit notice comes across as if we were officially promoting their use. That seems a step in the wrong direction. In fact, we should be firmly promoting not using them. I for one, after years of active admin service at IFD/FFD, still have to think twice every time I encounter these. They are annoying and useless. If people have difficulties understanding them, the solution is not to offer them cheat sheets. The solution is to get rid of them.

Please let's treat those acronyms as deprecated, and let's remove them from the edit notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]