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.

May I suggest that the template used to add nominations to the list be stripped of the "link header" function? Just below the header, the file is linked, so is it necessary to also link it in the header? Some editors like myself prefer the "right-click to edit" rather than "edit links". When the linked section header is right-clicked, all one gets is the usual choice box that one gets when one right-clicks a link. To edit the page, one has to go back to the higher level "date" header and right-click it. Then one must hunt for the particular file one wants to edit. If the filename headers are stripped of their links, then this problem would be solved:

• File:Anteh-vandalism kitteh lolcat.jpg → File:Anteh-vandalism kitteh lolcat.jpg
• Ref.: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing – General options

A right-click of the unlinked version in a header will allow editors to edit the individual file entry instead of the entire contents under the higher "Date" header. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I just discovered by experiment that my major concern here is unfounded. I played with it and found that if I right-click the page anywhere to the right of the section header on the same line as the header, even all the way to the right edge of the page, the edit screen for just that file opens. So I don't really have to open the entire edit page to leave an opinion or comment. Now, I still don't see the need for two links for each file, one in the section header and one just below that header, but at least I've found that there is a way to edit an individual entry that does not require my jumping thru hoops. Joys to all! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Oh! and I won't edit the links out of the section headers; however, I would support that if others want it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

I'm currently working on a project to replace NFU images with free use ones at [Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 August 2013]. In the process I've inadvertently used images which didn't fall into the copyright permission I was using. I've immediately reverted those images but I think I should call on someone to speedily delete the ones I used in error until such times as I can secure permission for their use. The files in question are all tagged as "free use image" or "free use file" and can be found at the following pages: File:18th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:17th Lancers Badge.jpg, File:19th Royal Hussars Badge.jpg, File:1st Life Guards Badge.jpg, File:15th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:16th Lancers Badge.jpg, File:14th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:13th Hussars Badge.jpg, File:26th Hussars Badge.jpg, and File:12th Lancers Badge.jpg. Sorry for the mixup. This only came to light when I spoke to the chap I get my military badges from. He informed me they weren't pictures he had taken. Some of the badges I uploaded were fine and aren't affected by this. Others will be going up tomorrow with the correct permission. In the meantime I've got some grovelling to do with a certain copyright holder. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week amount of participants has been very low. What gives? --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume people are aware of the huge backlog? There are uncontroversial noms from July that haven't been closed, and whole pages of noms from over a month ago that are barely touched. I started closing some of these, but it's quite a lot. Have a bunch of FFD regulars retired or something? rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I cannot nominate it myself, perhaps someone can do so on my behalf:

File:Glass Jars.jpg

Reason: Deliberately poor quality photograph, originally illustrating hoax article Glass jar, now unused. 86.169.184.130 (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Machine (sculpture) is a Featured Article candidate, and uses 3 freely-licensed photos of a 1988 sculpture. However, since the sculpture is copyrighted, the photos are non-free derivative works, and are nominated for deletion on Commons. It is certainly acceptable to use a single non-free photograph of the sculpture in an article about that sculpture, but there is discussion about whether multiple non-free photos can be used. (It is a dynamic sculpture, which looks different on different days.) If you are willing to comment, your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Weather Machine (sculpture)#Use of non-free images in this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]