Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 6

Just a hope
Is it possible to have Image:Virgin Killer.jpg up without threat of speedy keep? I think not a single IFD of this adressed all the greviences and issues while being dismissed with a wave of WP:NOTCENSORED. Multipule discussions are not always justification for a speedy keep. I want the image to be out for the full peiriod and preferbly with some notice on WP:VPM and/or WP:Community portal and/or WP:NEWS so we can get a large portion of the community. I want it to be set that the discussion will not be speedily kept so we can get a full discussion with all the concerns like WP:BLP, WP:FAIR, and other issues.
 * Nope. Especially right now that is not likely and bordering on wp:point. Wait 8 months or so. Of course even then it is more than likely the result will be the same as after the last (fully discussed) IFD and deletion review. 87.213.105.241 (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We all need to get over this "precedent" mentality and start things as one case. Let's give an IFD a real chance.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Template syntax
Before people start calling for my head over this, please let me explain why I've changed Template:ifd and friends to take image names in the format "Image_name.ext" instead of "Image:Image_name.ext". This needed to be done to make sure that the notice Template:idw spat out linked to the proper section heading rather than trying to link to "#File:Image_name.ext" when the discussion was at "#Image:Image_name.ext". It'll also help avoid using the misleading Image: prefix on non-images.

I made a couple minor tweaks to Twinkle so that it would list images correctly - if there are any other tools I can help fix please let me know. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up (seems like a good change, BTW). AnomieBOT did not require any changes to cope with the new format. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing a discussion
I'm curious why IfD discussions are closed with the section name outside the "archive box" while AfD discussions are closed with the section name inside the "archive box". Is this because of the closing template used? TfDs seem to go both ways. CfDs seem to keep the section name on the outside.--Rockfang (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, but I hope it doesn't change here. With per-date subpages (rather than per-nomination subpages, like AfD), it's more logical (and easier for bots to parse) to not include the section header in the comment box; if the header is inside the box, then the beginning of the box and the closing comment structurally belong to the previous section. With per-nomination subpages (like AfD) there is no structural issue either way, and a case could be made that having the closing comment in the "lead" section is more logical there. Whether this is actually the reason or not, I again have no idea.
 * TfDs are supposed to go after the header, but influence from AfD probably leads to before-header being used by some closers. This page was the same way (when discussions were boxed at all, the images would often be deleted with no edit here), until AnomieBOT started running and requiring the "official" closing style. Anomie⚔ 14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.  I am slightly surprised though that I didn't get response from commenting that the TfDs goes both ways. ;) Rockfang (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OIfD: Orphaned Images for Deletion
Reading through the recent IfD nominations, there are a lot of them that are being deleted for being orphaned. These deletions seem relatively uncontroversial, if important, but they tend to clutter up the IfD pages, making it hard to find the deletions for which debate might be worthwhile.

May I suggest instituting an OIfD process, where orphaned images go into their own section or page? That would make it easy to scan for non-orphaned images. Of course, it would be bad faith to unlink and image and then propose deletion as an orphan... but that's the case now. — PyTom (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that this not be used as a reason for deletion. "Wikipedia isn't a file host", well luckily Commons is. If it is a free image that is of reasonable quality of something that could potentially be used by someone, it doesn't matter the slightest bit if it's orphaned. This is only a valid criteria for non-free images. Seriously, I wish half of the people that were doing nominations just had Commons Helper. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Commons isn't a indiscriminate file host either, only images that are within the Commons:Project scope should be transfered to Commons, a lot of the orphanded images we delete are simply leftovers from deleted non-notable articles and often lack any kind of information that could be used to identify the subject or put it in any kind of usefull context. Though I nauturaly agree that images that could be moved to Commons should be rater than deleted just because we don't use it for whatever reason. --Sherool (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a dumb question: do I need to notify myself in writing of the impending deletion of two pictures I uploaded, when I am the person who listed the pictures on FFD in the first place? Erikeltic (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if you have a very poor memory ;) On a sidenote unless the deletion is likely to be controversial just put db-author on the images rater than listing them here. --Sherool (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Process name change proposal
As the "Image:" namespace has been renamed "File:", I propose that the unwieldy (and partially redundant) name "Images and media for deletion" be changed to "Files for deletion" (WP:FFD). Opinions? —David Levy 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say that would be an entirely appropriate name change for the page--"Files for deletion" would've been a better title even before the namespace change. You've got my support. :] -CapitalQ (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support but I'd run it by Village Pump (technical) for a day just to make sure there's no hidden technical reason not to do the rename. I can't think of any but I wouldn't be surprised if some bot somewhere relies on this page or another page that would be renamed in a way that a redirect would break.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that it's important to ensure that any technical issues are resolved in advance. —David Levy 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AnomieBOT would need an update. Zorglbot would also need an update to create the daily discussion pages in the new location. Various user scripts (e.g. Twinkle) that automate nomination of images would also need to be updated for the new name, and consideration of browser caching of Javascript-based scripts would be needed. There may be other issues too. Anomie⚔ 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Browser caching didn't present much of a problem when Template:ifd2 and friends were tweaked to accept "File_name.ext" instead of "Image:File_name.ext". I tweaked Twinkle to use the new syntax, and most users got the revised version of Twinkle without even noticing. Judging from this, I suspect that JavaScript tools are automatically redownloaded when you log out and log back in.
 * In any case, I can tweak Twinkle and Howcheng's deletion tool, so that just leaves AnomieBOT and Zorglbot. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Twinkle may check itself for updates periodically, and force a redownload if it changed (I know at least one popular tool does this, but I don't recall which). At any rate, that's good that it works. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, are you all set to update AnomieBOT once the change is made? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an easy change (just replace the old name with the new, and make redirects for any active old discussions so the bot can still find them. Have you decided on a date for the change? Anomie⚔ 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd make the change today. I can update Twinkle and Howcheng's deletion tool, and Schutz said that he is ready to update Zorglbot. Any other minor problems can be fixed as they crop up. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change. I was going to move all the subpages of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to subpages of Wikipedia:Files for deletion, but it turns out that the move tool has a limit of 100 automatic subpage moves. I could write a bot to move the rest, thoughts? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * AnomieBOT is updated, and I fixed a few of the several templates used here too. I'm not sure it's really necessary to move all 1130 remaining subpages, but if you really want to... Anomie⚔ 03:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to move the templates as well? It would be sensible, even if is a bit wierd at first sight... Happy‑melon 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. I've moved the major templates now. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion/reupload request
Hi, Can someone please delete File:Projectionist.png and then reupload a new screenshot? The current screenshot features a copyright violation of one of my image (hoverflies mating in midair). I would do this myself however I'm not sure whether I can upload under a fair use copyright tag considering I'm from Australia where we don't have fair use AFAIK... --Fir0002 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Should files be eligible for PROD
Another editor boldly added files to the things that are eligible for Proposed deletion. I reverted the edits because this is a major change and it impacts policies, guidelines, and how-tos across both the deletion- and file- areas of the Wikipedia: namespace. I'm opening a discussion here so we can decide 1) do we want to do this and 2) what steps do we need to do to make this happen smoothly. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason image deletion was originally controversial was it could not be undone like article deletion could be. Now we can easily restore any deleted image.  I mentioned this change a couple times at WT:PROD and there did not seem to be much opposition (or even any interest) in it.  And considering we already have DFUI (a PROD-like template system) and that most IFDs and PUIs are closed as delete without any comments, this seems like a good idea.  Also, it saves an extra 2 edits from listing at IFD and then closing the IFD.  MBisanz  talk 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very limted practical value, non-free files which are not in use are speedy-deleted, free files whether in use or not can typically be speedy-transwikied without discussion, leaving only unknown-provenance files and files that are in use. If a file is in use, its use should either be discussed or it can be boldly removed, making it a non-in-use image.  If a file is of unknown provenance and the questionable provenance is the reason for deletion, it should be discussed or boldly removed.  The only practical value I can see is for free files which are not in use and not eligible for transwiki to the commons.  These are typically files which will never have encyclopedic value.  Right now, IFD seems to be coping with these fairly well.  By the way, FFD/IFD's process is like a mix of article PROD and AFD:  If you nominate a file for deletion and there are no other comments, it gets deleted after awhile.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no real need to close non-controversial IFDs - we used to just leave them as is - if there was a red link there, then the image had been deleted and you would only close it if it was a controversial decision that needed some explanation or if there was commons bleed. I think there's an advantage to keeping images separate from prods and that's so that admins who don't understand copyright issues won't feel tempted to try to resolve the issue.  If I had my druthers, we would just add a speedy deletion criterion for "unusable photos uploaded by inactive editors".  If we do allow prodding of images, I think that requirement needs to be added - only images by absentee uploaders that do not relate to an existing article can be prodded.  Anything other than that limited case really ought to come here to be reviewed.  --B (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think those only get closed now because of AnomieBOT.  howcheng  {chat} 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Effectively now we have a prod process&mdash;though different from articles. As davidwr says many of the files that would be covered as deleted, non-controversially, through here with no comment and AnomieBOT marking the discussion as closed. The only edits that would be saved is that by AnomieBOT and it does them in batches. I think that if this prod system were implemented then we'd not only get images deleted with even less community scrutiny than at present but have another place to have a backlog. The vast majority of Images nominated for deletion as deleted without comment or controversy and this seems to be working well - Peripitus (Talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How does FfD work?
Administrator Chick Bowen commented on the FfD process n his close of a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2009 January 10. If his conclusions are correct, they should probably be indicated in the head material for the page. They seem more or less on target to me, but I tend to avoid images when I can. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Flood
I've written an orphaned-image identifying script on the toolserver, and it has identified over 35,000 self-published images that are orphans. And I mean true orphans - zero links from anywhere in Wikipedia, not even from Talk: or User: pages. Further, I filter out images that are already up for deletion, and images that have been edited in the last week (so as to give new images a chance to be placed).

Most of these images are of no encyclopedic value and should be deleted (you may have noticed my spamming of the IfD list lately), while some should be ported to Commons.

The question now is, how do we deal with it?


 * 1) I could try to enlist others to help deal with the list - but that could land hundreds - or even thousands - of no-brainer images on IfD every day.
 * 2) I could try to get a bot to place, say 50-80 images a day on the IfD list - but that would be dumping extra work on IfD, as each would have to be reviewed for Commons-worthiness.
 * 3) Other suggestions? Questions?

--Ja Ga talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a thorny problem. I've gone through about the top 20 and it's not clear how to do this in any useful automatic way. A couple I deleted as obvious copyvios, sent quite a few to Ifd as unusable here, tagged a couple as missing permission and some more for moving to commons. I think you should also exclude images already tagged with movetocommons. Whatever we do, 35K images is a flood to deal with....no real need to rush anything though. Mass Ifd/tagging will attract the rightful comment that it is too fast for people to check and decide so perhaps many images that should be on commons will be deleted. I reckon a few dedicated volunteers would be a better solution, though it may take a year or more. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, thanks. The list now also omits movetocommons images. And I agree - this will have to be done manually. What a huge undertaking! It appears that no one has ever tried cleaning up orphaned free images before - which surprises me. Do you have any suggestions how best to find volunteers? --Ja Ga talk  06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sure you will find a few people around here to help out; myself included. Just be warned that anyone who helping should be ready for the almost guaranteed "your ruining the encyclopedia" and "what's wrong with my picture of my dog" retoric which follows tagging personal photos.  You may also want to try and recruite some admins to help with the processing.  We have some admins who handle the bulk of the work; get some others to come help with the "low hanging fruit".  Not that I am bitter (much!), but in a prior WP life, I was not granted adminship because I was too focused on image image processing rather then article writing. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never rely gotten a lot of complaints from nominating unused personal photos (95% of the time the uploader has been inactive for years anyway). I'll see if I can jump in and help a bit when I get some spare time. I have chipped away at some of these in the past via Special:UnusedFiles, but it's heavily "contaminated" with Commons images for some reason.
 * Yeah the RfA people can be strange sometimes. I was actualy given the admin bit mostly because of my work with images, but there was the obligatory objections because I hadn't written any featured articles yet, but I got though ok (guess standards have "risen" since then)... I get that writing a FAR is a good way to show dedication and ability to work well with others, but I've never gotten why some people treat above average article writing as the only valid road to adminship. If anything we need more "WikiGnome" admins that are willing to chip away at various un-glamorous backlogs. I rarely write articles, almost never contribute to AfD or do any vandal fighting so I suspect a lot of people would argue that I'm not "worthy" of the admin bit, but I've still managed to accumulate ~37k deletion actions (mostly images) over the years, that's work others would have had to do instead if the "not enough FAR, AfD work" people had their way. Um yeah --Sherool (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A question on the list itself - does the list automatically re-generate itself? The reason I ask is that I randomly pick some offset so I jump right into the middle of the list. I figure there is no point in everyone starting at the beginning. My question comes from, as people get to those sections that I have randomly hit, will they find ones that I have tagged as move to commons and also nominated for deletion or will they be filtered out automatically? Gotta also commend you on that contribution listing beside the name, it has saved a few images that I would have otherwise nominated due to a complete lack of information on the image page. Also as a curiosity, how are these files sorted? --Jordan 1972 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Thanks for the questions. I love that people are starting to use my page.
 * 2. The list is re-generated each time a user requests it (or refreshes the page), so when people reach your sections, the images you've already dealt with won't show up. I do the random offset thing too.
 * 3. I'm glad to hear you're using the contribution listing column - I was worried people would ignore it because I had a tough time explaining how it works.
 * 4. The files aren't sorted at all - sorting would kill page rendering time - but it seems like newer articles are more likely to be at the end of the list, which is fortunate.
 * --Ja Ga talk 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just ran across a used image that had no file links show up. I was just about to list it for deletion, but happened to check the users userpage first and saw the image there. Believe it's caused by an old bug so it should only affect pages that have not been edited for years. Doing a null edit on the page will fix the issue, but you hae to find the page the image is used on first to do that. Probably not something we need to worry about overmuch, just do a spot check on the uploaders userpage and otherwise be prepared to withdraw your nomination if someone point out the image is in fact used somewhere (and make sure to null edit that page so the file link is properly regenerated). --Sherool (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you come across another image like that, could you let me know? I'll double-check my script to make sure it isn't missing something. --Ja Ga talk  16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unused township images
I've come across a lot of orphaned township map images such as these. (Just click on the township in the image's comment to see its replacement.) Do I need to FfD each one individually, or is there some more organized way to go about it? --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems too good to be true
When I announced the huge number of orphaned self-published images, we had over 35,000 of them. I just checked - now it's at around 10,000. Where'd they go? Has someone actually dealt with 25,000 images in less than a fortnight? --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more mundane reason ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it. They should all pop back into the list within the week. --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk  19:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Link vandalism
I recently reverted some link vandalism at Files for deletion/2009 February 24. Is there any chance that this should be replaced by a template? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons discussion on cosplaying
There's a mass deletion request going on on Commons regarding whether or not images of cosplayers are derivative works of the copyrighted animated source characters. Your opinion would be welcome, whether or not you have a Commons account. I'm also interested in whether there is precedent for this on En. Dcoetzee 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete links
Hi folks, just to let you know that I unwittingly broke Template:Ffd2 in an attempt to prepopulate the page name as a deletion reason. It means that the Delete button next to some listings will prefill a deletion reason of "Stifle (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images
Heads up - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Which tag to use
If I want to nominate a file for deletion for being a possible fake / being from a likely unreliable source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How to handle redirects?
Since file redirects now "work", the question of how to handle them here arises (particularly in the context of AnomieBOT); this is clearly incorrect. My thoughts: The detection of the first versus the second case would work the same as the current discrimination between "nominated a non-existent file" and "file was deleted after nomination". Any comments? Anomie⚔ 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone nominates a file redirect, AnomieBOT should probably close the discussion with a note along the lines of "If you are trying to nominate the redirect for deletion, list it at WP:RFD. If you are trying to nominate File:Redirect target.jpg for deletion, please nominate it by that name."
 * If an image is moved after nomination, I guess the bot should make a note of that in the discussion and change the section title. If there is no more need for deletion, a human would have to close it.
 * It seems an existing image can't just be changed into a redirect, it has to be deleted for the redirect to actually take effect. In which case, AnomieBOT would close it as "deleted by admin" and ignore that a redirect was recreated in its place.
 * Ok, this is done. Image redirects created by moves during the nomination will have a note posted (and the section renamed to the new name), and other redirects will be closed as described above. Let me know if any errors occur. Anomie⚔ 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is an approved change to the wording of duplicate ? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so. It's in line with policy, and it's clearer. – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Badly named images
I've been looking through Category:Media renaming requests. Some are useful files that just need to be renamed, such as File:0330280414.jpg... but many others are orphans and seem pretty random, such as File:0856263.jpg or File:100 09242.jpg or File:100 0982.jpg. They're available under a free license, and would be fine if they were on a userpage or something. Some have descriptions enough to say what they are, (like File:20032212.jpg), but they're not in use, and I don't know that they'd ever be good in an article. I guess they could hypothetically be useful, if someone knew more about what they were, but I think they're mostly just taking up space.

It seems there are 2 ways to deal with them. One, I could go through the trouble of renaming them (to what?), and then moving them to Commons. Two, I could nominate them for deletion. It would be a lot of images for deletion, though, if I nominated all renaming-request orphans. It'd certainly be easier than renaming and transferring them all to Commons. How should I handle these? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be deleted automatically. This tool, which provides a link to users' contributions right after they uploaded an image (for use with orphan images) can be helpful in determining what images are. I would use that tool to process the orphans first, trying to determine what they are, then move on to the non-orphaned ones. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images
It appears that the vast majority of PD-Old and PD-US photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#1
Hi guys, do the photos on this article violate NFCC#1 (An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above.)? If not, can said photos be donated to the "public domain" by a user, as it's just a photo of copyrighted images? <font color="Black">Ryan <font color="CornflowerBlue">4314   (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This one's rather complicated. First off, you can donate the photos to the public domain... but the photos are derivative works, and the underlying cover art is still copyrighted. So you can't make them free images, and cover art in a list like that would be a violation of NFCC#1.
 * However, these aren't purely cover art, like File:Residentevildeadaim.jpg is. They're photos of several game cartridges. There's a fine line here. The photo File:PS2Slim.JPG shows part of the cover of a PS2 DVD, but it's not a copyright violation. You have to look at the effect and the intent of the reproduction. Effect: does it reproduces the whole work in high quality, serving as a potential replacement for the original image? Or does it only show part of the work, at an angle? Intent: is the photo designed primarily to reproduce the original art? Or is the inclusion just a small part of the image, designed to show something else?
 * In this case, I'd recommend taking a photo that looks more like File:Videogameretaildisplay.jpg. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As the photographer of these games that I own, I release them to the public domain; however, I have revised the copyright to be fair use for them and added a rationale consistent with other fair use game cover images. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:Hiking.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hiking.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * uploader has written self-made on several copyvios i have found so far, doubt he made this and even if he did there's no need to take a risk on something that could easily be redrawn Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I created using MS Paint. The exact design is similar to some hiking signs I've seen. I'll leave it up to you if you feel it needs to be deleted.  Just, if there is a sybol that can be used to indicate hiking trails, let me know.--  Dmm1169 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinions
It has been requested that "Files for Deletion" regulars weigh in on the debate at, since it seems to involve nuances of policy. Any comments, for or against, would be welcome. – Quadell (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Extension to 7 days
Given that all other deletion forums are now at 7 days, should this one now be as well?--Aervanath (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there would have to be a good reason not to. Some people only 1-2 days off a week, so they could miss the discussion. It makes sense. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  05:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This would require a change to our deletion policy. – Quadell (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The change has already been made. See Deletion_policy.--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This XFD receives less reviews than others, so keeping it 5 days is better than holding them back.  Zoo Fari  02:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Receives less reviews" is an argument FOR extending to seven days; this way more editors will possibly weigh in on each discussion, especially with JohnnyMrNinja's point above that some editors only log on once a week, and could therefore miss an FFD they care about.--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, and updated AnomieBOT's updating of the Old discussions section to match. Anomie⚔ 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

IfD process question
The image Image:Time magazine.jpg was listed for deletion by user:Damiens.rf. Four editors voted to keep this image, offering sound reasons for doing so, however the nominator (who I understood cannot vote here) has somehow trumped the unanimous opinion on the grounds of the image being "decorative". I'd be grateful if someone could explain how/why a nomination can trump four strong votes to keep. Thank you. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"> Socrates2008 ( Talk )   09:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wc99.png
Does anyone think the above image is unlikely to be PD? SGGH ping! 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Image version
Isn't there a way to request that an Admin delete older versions of a file, that have been uploaded over top of?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. What image did you have in mind? – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This one comes to mind. There are currently 7 versions of the file, including the current one. One includes a size change, one includes a change after group discussion, one includes a personal change without discussion, and then a couple are just my errors because I refreshed the screen and accidentally loaded three times.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done that one. I don't know of a central place to ask for this, besides WP:AN. – Quadell (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I always thought there was some template you could put on the file requesting all previous versions be deleted.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aalto's tea cart
Hi, we are currently discussing whether that tea cart is an artwork or just everyday object. If it is declared as art, may you use this in the enWP? We may not in the deWP. If you may not use it, too, I will request a deletion on Commons. --Thalan (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you having this discussion?

I think it is art, because:

It’s initially visually attractive, but quickly starts to look impractical. To much care has gone into its design for a simple device, then leaving too many unsatisfying features. You can make a cart out of ready to use parts, or buy one that is perfectly functional more cheaply, in molded plastic. This one doesn’t have barriers to stop the tea falling off the sides. To move it, it either has to scrape, or the user has to awkwardly lift one end, tipping and rolling things, noting as before that there are insufficient barriers. The wheels are a visual feature rather than chosen function. Big wheels make for stability over uneven ground, but the tread of the wheel is virtually non-existent, meaning it is only suitable for very smooth floors, or it will bump about whatever is carried.

But I am not really an artist, so I asked someone more artistic. She said it looks like something from a cartoon; it looks comical. The wheels are stupid, as aren’t very good at helping to move the cart about. It’s art but useless art.

It reminds me of an all wooden bicycle I once saw. Beautiful wood. Nice finish. Probably works, but was never intended to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're mostly discssing it in the IRC (#wikipedia-de). Is it allowed to use it here in the enWP when it is ruled an artwork? --Thalan (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is definitely an artwork. The photograph is of it as an artwork.  It is clearly not to be a typical illustration of a typical tea cart.  For use on enWP, I don't think it matters at all whether the cart is artwork, it is enough that commons tells us it is public domain.  I think the question you are asking goes to whether the author was allowed to release the image.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it has no other purpose in existance, then it is art.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about some images
There are 90-some images from a site which has been judged to be unreliable. The links were also seen as promotional and have been removed. Unfortunately, it appears that the site is also a copyright violating site, specifically with respect to images. For example, the image File:Ubuntu_on_Windows_-_Firefox_vs_Firefox.png is from this site, so has to have a source link to the site. But if you click through that source link, the site claims to have released a Windows screenshot into the public domain, something they are not entitled to do. I believe that by having a derived image and linking to the site, Wikipedia is aiding and abetting this copyright violation. What I'm not sure about is, do all images from this site need to be removed, or just the problematic ones? (i.e. ones that depict non-free software but don't acknowledge the software vendors interest in the image). Yworo (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not seems to be copyright violation but a fair-use image, so it should be OK. As long as the images are "free" and/or fair-use, then they should be OK for wikipedia. Just make sure you use the proper license and the images are in fact fair-use and it is OK. Jerebin (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus
According to WP:NFCC, the burden of proof is on "users seeking to include or retain content"; this implies that no consensus closes for fair-use images default to delete. However, according to precedent (e.g., Files for deletion/2009 April 18, among many others), no consensus closes for fair-use images default to keep. Question: What should no consensus closes default to? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My $0,02: Despite previous mistakes, policies like WP:NFCC are considered site-wide consensus, and it says that we only use non-free content when those wanting to retain the material (i.e.: thee keepers) manage to provide a valid reason for doing so. A perceived local lack of consensus on an ifd discussion should not override the overall consensus byte[] feedByteArrayrepresented by WP:NFCC. --Damiens .rf 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Damiens.rf. A no-consensus closure for a non-free image should result in the image being deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that deletion debates that focus on WP:NFCC compliance issues should definitely use the "Enforcement" clause of the NFCC itself rater than the general "no consensus = keep" logic. It's all well and good to keep stuff there is no consensus to delete normally, but non-free content is a special class of content governed by it's own special exemption policy. As such it seems obvious to me that the key aspects of WP:NFCC should be applied when closing FFD debates focused squarely on NFCC compliance issues. Notably a lack of consensus that a "(...) convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." exist is reason enough to delete regardless of how many editors argue to keep the image for any number of other reasons (including that the image comply with some of the criteria (a common situation is that people argue that an image with disputed significance should be kept because it is not replaceable)). --Sherool (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not disagree more. It might possibly be different  if the problem is the actual legality of the image, but that is usually not the question -- which is almost always whether or not the image meets our artificial additional restrictions which we have chosen to require as a further restriction. If there is not agreement on the meaning of the restriction in any given instance, there is no basis for deletion. If it truly does not meet our policy, there will be agreement to that effect--as there usually is.  DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy. Most of times an image use is challenged in regard to WP:NFCC, editors will appear voting keep claiming the image is useful or historical without any tentative explanation of why it is so. Some naive admins will see this as a no-consensus and decide the image should be kept, which is clearly not the desirable outcome. --Damiens .rf 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a leaning on this issue. I have refused to delete File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg simply because the issue hasn't been settled, and when in doubt, don't delete. However, I will say that the NFCC enforcement criterion has nothing to do with the interpretation of consensus, but rather the enforcement of consensus. I will not change my closure as no consensus, but the result of a no consensus can vary depending on what comes out of this discussion. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems fairly clearly to me that if there is no consensus to retain a non-free image, it should be deleted. Unlike with articles, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the image- therefore, no consensus means we go back to the default position, which is to delete the image. Note that, for instance, IfDs with no comments are closed as delete, unlike AfDs- this shows that the practise already is to delete if there is no strong consensus. Any interpretation otherwise would require a change in the wording of our non-free content criteria, which is what IfD is (primarily) based upon. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even the Foundation's resolution on non-free media suggests deletion unless it fully meets our requirements. --M ASEM (t) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Foundation's stance on this is pretty clear. We are, by definition (see Mission), a free content resource. Articles are treated different than non-free content because by default (unless copyvios) they are comprised of free content text. With images that is not the case. The WP:NFCC policy exists to limit the use of non-free content. It doesn't exist to provide potentials reasons to delete content. Thus, we don't upload an image, claim its fair use, and then retain it if we get enough people to throw it into no consensus. The image has to get through the hoops first. Failing to achieve consensus that it is acceptable means it didn't make it past WP:NFCC and it therefore must be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As it has been at least since I started editing, it seems to me that if there is no opposition, or a no consensus, the default should be delete on PUF and FFD. That's how I close discussions here... it is either "keep" or "delete", but never "no consensus". If a good consensus can't be determined, I tend to let the nomination stay around for a while to see if there are any more comments, but usually it is pretty clear. I also agree with what J Milburn, Masem, Hammersoft, and Damiens.rf. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though I don't work at FFD, it seems fairly clear to me. If there's no real consensus for the inclusion of a given non-free image, it should be deleted. We are an intrinsically free-content website, so we use fully copyrighted files sparingly, and only under certain circumstances. Whether a discussion's result is clear enough to close as "delete", or if it's a mixed "no consensus", it should default to delete if the keep/delete arguments are evenly split. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  be kind to newcomers 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the contentious issue is WP:NFCC. The other requirements are objective and are either true or not.  However NFCC #8 relies upon a value judgement and thus is an opinion and entirely subjective.  In this case alone therefore I very strongly disagree that no consensus should result in automatic deletion.  If substantive arguments have been made that an image satisfies NFCC #8, which is to say more than "yes it does" type of comments, then the default should be keep.  Even more so in cases like File:RNZAF_P3.jpg where a clear consensus to keep was reached, but an admin decided that "consensus does not over ride policy" and applied his opinion over that of the consensus.  We need more than a black and white application of policy by zealots in the application of this very grey area of policy.  Let us change the policy wording for this particular case to allow for a more nuanced approach. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, what? "Because some people don't much like this policy and some people think it should be more liberal, if enough of the liberals turn up at a deletion discussion, we should go along with them instead of the people who actually respect policy"? No, not really how it works. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not arguing for a more liberal policy, what I am arguing for is some logical application of the existing one. One cannot expect to apply the methods used to assess objective criteria when assessing subjective ones.  An objective criteria can be shown to be either true or not.  A subjective criteria is always a matter of opinion.  Nothing in any Wikipedia policy that I have ever heard of gives one editor's opinion greater weight than another's.  Yet I see those who disagree dismissed by contrasting them with people "who actually respect policy".  Well, who are these people "who actually respect policy"?  The simple fact is I am as strong an advocate for the NFCC policy as anyone.  I just don't accept the overzealousness with which some seem to want to wield that policy.  It seems that some here seem to think that there is some way of objectively assesing NFCC #8 that they exclusively have a grip on.  If one really thinks this is so, then please inform the community.  Please write an essay explaining the revolutionary method for objectively assessing subjective criteria.  Otherwise be honest and admit that NFCC #8 is a matter of interpretation and in a particular case one may well be wrong.  Furthermore, because it is a subjective criteria then it is entirely appropriate that the community's view should prevail, as expressed through a reasonable consensus in any discussion about NFCC #8.  Being an admin does not give one's arguments extra merit in a deletion debate and to see examples of policy waving as we have recently by an admin does little to instill confidence in the integrity of Wikipeia's processes for making such decisions. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  13:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not actually what this discussion is about, I'm not quite sure who/what you think you're arguing against. This discussion is about what to do with regards to those cases where there is no clear consensus on whether an image meets NFCC#8- the majority here believe we should go along with what our NFCC say about where the burden of proof lies and delete. However, for what it's worth (and reply on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further, as this is not what the discussion is about) meeting NFCC#8 is not about mindless "this is my opinion, that's your opinion"- yes, there is, naturally, a degree of subjectivity in it, but there is in most things. Instead, it should be a matter of rational discussion on what an image adds to an article and whether what it adds is actually required for a full understanding of the article. For a comparison, it's not like a discussion of "who sounds better, Elvis or Michael Jackson" which would be normally be considered entirely subjective; instead, it would be like asking "who was more talented, Elvis or Michael Jackson?" Yes, there is still a degree of subjectivity, but there are comparisons to be made and objective criteria against which the issue can be measured. It is clear that, in each case, the image needs to be independently judged- this is the reason we have deletion discussions. The same is true of notability- in each case, we must make a judgement call on whether a subject is notable. Yes, we have precedents and criteria, but at the end of the day, it comes down to a judgement call on how to apply those criteria. As such, pretending that NFCC#8 is some kind of "special case" in terms of Wikipedia policy is not going to get you anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "No consensus --> keep" is pretty standard at XfD pages, but if there's no clear reason to keep a non-free image (ie: discussion cannot arrive at a consensus to keep it), WP:NFCC seems to guide us pretty directly toward the conclusion that it should be deleted. That seems to be a pretty common sentiment in this discussion, so far. If we apply that reasoning and it leads to sub-par results, we can always apply liberal doses of deletion review or revert to older practice. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that for fair use images of living people, "no consensus" should default to delete. For fair use images of other things, the matter seems less clear to me and should depend on the image's origin.  For example, I think that swiped from a photographer who relies on copyright for their livelihood should default to "delete", but I also think that swiped from a publicly-funded museum or gallery that owns the picture but not the image should default to "keep".—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say No Consensus votes on things FfD'd for copyright vio should be deleted, but those FfD'd for Wiki-based issues (Orphaned/Obsolete/Unencyclopedic/Low quality) should be kept per all other deletion discussions. In other words, if it's a sticky legal issue it's probably best to err on the side of caution (except in particular cases where, perhaps, the copyright status is being reviewed and no consensus is reached or something) but where it's just a Wiki issue there's no reason to kill good and fixable content it can and hopefully will get dealt with. That's really the stuff people get the The Rescue Barnstar 3 for, for example. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that for "normal" deletion debates focused only the usefulness/quality of the content no consensus defaults to keep, that's standard procedure and not in question here. The question raised here only concern those deletion debates that focus on claims of non-compliance with the Non-free content criteria. Same logic apply to copyright violations too naturally, but in that case it's already pretty much standard practice to delete anything that can not be proven to be free licensed when in doubt. --Sherool (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on this for all NFCC violations except for #8. It's the famous clause that you can ask three people and get ten interpretations of it. For NFCC#8 disputes, I think we should close the FFD and open a wider discussion about NFCC#8 ompliane. Sceptre (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly would you suggest to hold such "wider" debate anyway? Non-free content review is if anything even more sparsely populated than Files for deletion. Anyway it makes little sense to me to close a deletion debate to bring it to another forum, and regardles of what forum the issue is discussed in the question remains the same: What cause of action to take if there is no consensus that the image comply with the non-free policy? To me it seems pretty clear given WP:NFCC. --Sherool (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AGF, oncer a non-free rationale has been created, we should assume it to be correct unless we achieve consensus that it isn't. This is the same burden that all other aspects of deletion policy have. The enforcement section of WP:NFCC should only kick in when the rationale is incomplete or non-existent. That's why the NFCC point out that "Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Criteria for speedy deletion." Once a rationale clears the speedy criterion, we should assume, in good faith, that the rationale is correct, at least until we come to a consensus that it isn't. — PyTom (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is not the same as assuming that the person at the other end is correct, which is what you seem to be implying. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if a reasonably arguable case has been made for NFCC #8 it then becomes a matter of opinion and pretending that there is some objective way of assessing this criterion is nonsense. Too many of those who participate in deletion debates about NFCC issues (particulalry on #8) simply policy wave and then put into action their narrow interpretation.  I believe that this is damaging to the project.  IMO, so long as a reasonably  arguable case has been made for NFCC #8 then reverse the burden of proof on that criteria should be removed, which is to say that those proposing change (deletion) should carry the burden of proof. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that depends on how you define a "reasonably arguable case" I guess, obviously both sides have to argue their case, it takes more than a base asertion that policy is violated to get anything deleted, if good arguments to keep are made anyone who argue for deletion need to adress them and provide couner points and so on. However when the dust settle if there is no consensus that the image does comply with policy the default should be to remove it since there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content on Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Perhaps you should see what passes for argument in the image deletion disucssions. Common scenario: Some user with a bee in his or her bonnet nominates an image with the policy wave "fails NFCC #8". If someone points out that there is already a perfectly good rationale for the use or provides one, it is dismissed or ignored.  Some like minded admin jumps in, claims "no consensus", and deletes the image.  I have seen several "justifications" for this approach "policy over-rules consensus", "there's a huge backlog of nominated images" or, most often, no argument at all simply a reiteration of the original policy wave from the nomination.  The same names appear over and over again doing this. Some of these, if you look at their editing history have a record of tenditious and disputed editing, some have been blocked multiple times for edit warring or 3R infringements.  The current policy WRT NFCC #8 gives these people an excuse for their actions and allows them to rationalise their approach. I do not even think some of these people realise their approach is disruptive, I think they really do think they are acting in good faith. The current wording of NFCC #8 together with the blanket reversal of the burden of proof for ALL NFCC discussion is the root cause. It is time we changed the approach to this not very clear cut, highly subjective criteria. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I've experienced an overly zealous, anti-non-free admin; this person removed images from an article, then declared them "orphaned" (to circumvent NFCC 7), nominated for CSD based on that, then threatened to block anyone who reverted his changes. We're now having a very surreal DRV discussion as the result of the scenario described in the post immediately above by  Nick Thorne .  <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•   18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no automatic entitlement. But once a rationale exists, it should be accepted in good faith until consensus determines otherwise. That's the standard at all deletion discussions.... once an article exists, we consider it to be encyclopedic until consensus determines otherwise. We trust the original user's judgement until such time as a new consensus emerges. — PyTom (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In many cases, that's just silly. Think about it. Why do we put more weight on the original user's opinion, when, in many cases, they may know little or nothing about our non-free content criteria? Non-free content is contrary to our goal of being a free encyclopedia- we choose to allow it, yes, but only just. As such, whenever we do choose to use it, we should be absolutely sure that it is what the community wants. J Milburn (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, don't delete. seems pretty clear - Deletion guidelines for administrators, the bold is in the original. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume we have not actually done so. You are seeing the clear words that it is the duty of the users to provide a rationale and trying to persuade everyone that what this actually means is that it is the duty of the users to provide consensus. As you can see by your own unsuccessful attempt here, providing consensus is far different than merely providing a rationale. As in all other deletion discussions from the time we have had deletion discussions, no consensus defaults to keep. Always has. Changing this ... requires consensus. --GRuban (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from with non-free content and BLP. I may have been editing a different project to everyone else, but I was always under the impression that there had to be consensus to include such controversial things as negative information about a living person or non-free content, not a consensus to remove them. J Milburn (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, there was recent discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy, and the overwhelming consensus was not to make AfDs involving BLP issues "default to delete". Jheald (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. Let's see whether J Milburn has "been editing a different project to everyone else". Let's search for the words "no consensus" and site:Wikipedia:Files for deletion on Google: . Top ten results:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions: "If the decision is Keep (including any variant such as "Redirect" or "No Consensus"):" - well, that seems quite straight forward. But of course those are merely the instructions for this page, surely an inspired deep reading of a different policy can take precedence.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_November_27 "Kept, no consensus to delete"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_8 "The Review was closed as relist, simply saying "no consensus""
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_22 "Keep ... at best no consensus"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_28 "The result of the discussion was: No consensus, defaults to keep."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_January_7 "Image kept. No consensus to delete" (3 times!)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_23 "I also understand completely if you feel that this is a "no consensus, default to keep" discussion."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_15 "The result of the discussion was: Keep - No consensus to delete" (2 times)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_16 "The result of the discussion was: no consensus" (and image was kept)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_January_10 "The result of the discussion was: Kept: No consensus to delete."
 * Seems pretty clear: yes, J Milburn has "been editing a different project to everyone else". Everyone else has been editing the project where no consensus defaulted to keep. --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you really silly enough not to know the difference between "no consensus" and "no consensus to delete"? --Damiens .rf 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not coming out and calling me silly directly, because that would have been offensive. Phrasing it in the form of a question makes me feel not nearly as offended. :-( First, please notice that many do, in fact, use the terms interchangeably (for example, User:Sherool, in this very discussion, above). If you look at the discussions in question, I think it is not at all clear whether there would be a difference. Finally, even if we do nitpick the words, you will notice not a single one of them saying "no consensus, default to delete", and quite a few saying "no consensus, default to keep". I stand by my claim that no consensus has consistently meant "keep", and welcome anyone trying to do a better test to prove otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC, a policy, supersedes WP:DGFA, a guideline. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No argument. It just doesn't say what J Milburn seems to be reading into it. --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I refer you to the words of an administrator named Stifle, at Files_for_deletion/2009 April 28: "The result of the discussion was: No consensus, defaults to keep." Wise man, that Stifle. I believe he is highly respected around here, has lots of experience, speaks well, knowledge of policy, guidelines, and current practice. It doesn't behoove us to overrule his comments and actions cavalierly... :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll note of course that was referring to a file that was marked as free content. I don't suppose you can find a quote from Stifle that references a non-free file? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Files_for_deletion/2009_April_18. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some sort of assumption that it's difficult to get consensus to delete a fair use image. Exactly the opposite is the case. Let's pick an example, the first date linked to in this discussion, Files for deletion/2009 June 22. 43 files nominated for deletion... 40 deleted - 3 kept. Surely this is not an overly high bar we are setting here. Is there really such an urgent need to lower it further? --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you realise how many images we have that actually need to be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably somewhat fewer than it is your opinion need to be deleted. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done! You said "opinion"! We all know that invalidates everything I say, because who cares what my opinion is! Grow up. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep it civil. No need to question someone else's maturity. It should be evident from each of our statements. --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was struck by the forcefulness of comments made by, as it happens a lawyer, not here but in a DRV that is currently ongoing:"The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus, and what the outcome of it not reaching a consensus is... Policy does not simply state that 'the burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image.' It says that it is 'the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale'. This does not change what happens if there is no consensus about whether they have provided a valid rationale."FfDs tend already to be quite stacked against users there that want to keep their images:
 * Arguments that go against policy are (quite rightly) discounted (WP:DGFA).
 * Saying "unnecessary, does not help reader understanding" is given great weight; but "valuable, does help reader understanding" is not.
 * Arguments to keep that do not join all the dots, but leave some of the links to policy unstated even if obvious, are quie often passed over.
 * Image deletion often tends to be a focus for those arguing it; those wishing to keep tend to be far less aware as to how to state their case effectively.
 * I agree with Sandstein that the burden of proof is a different issue to the means used to judge whether it has been met. In a court of law, when a jury is directed to apply a particular burden of proof on a given point, that does not affect the majority needed for a verdict.  (It may also be relevant that, at least in English law, when the burden of proof is reversed, it typically requires a lower standard to establish, typically "reasonable probability" -- we could perhaps learn from that, too)
 * The bottom line is: would changing WP:DGFA to adopt this be good for the project?
 * I don't think so. As set out above, FFD already tends to be pretty tough for images, and in my view is tough enough.  I don't see examples of great numbers of images getting away that shouldn't have.  On the contrary.  When the Foundation adopted the resolution, we have been told by Kat Walsh, they did so because they considered en.wiki an example of best practice, and had no motive to reduce NFC use.  But there has been a fair old purge since then, which doesn't seem to have been notably held up by problems at FFD.
 * On the other hand, if a glib "no consensus means delete" is adopted, what then makes a consensus? I can see cases where small minorities, maybe argued well outside established precedent or guidance, nevertheless argue there is "no consensus" because they want to delete.
 * Better, I think, to continue at FFD as it has been, judged on the balance of the arguments presented, rather than requiring one side or the other to be a formal consensus. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing I would add: so far there has been quite a pile-on of those who make it their mission to delete images. If this discussion was being held in a more watched forum, eg WT:DP, or WT:DGFA, where final wording will presumably need to be settled if anything is to be added to that guideline, it will be interesting to see what input from a wider pool of editors thinks. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is linked from the Policy RFCs and from WP:CENT, I have a temptation to read that message as "this discussion is going against me, so I am declaring that the consensus doesn't count and that a new discussion will have to be convened somewhere else". I assume my temptation is misconceived. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This discussion was WELL advertised; WP:RFC, WP:CENT and WT:NFC. Jheald wants us to have the discussion at WP:DP. Guess what you see when you go to WT:DP? WP:CENT inclusion. So it's advertised there too. And WT:DGFA being a more watched forum? That's laughable. 250 edits to that discussion page takes you back to 2003. 250 here takes you back to 2008. This page here is the perfect place for discussion of the issue, and it has been very well advertised. I've additionally advertised it at WT:DGFA, WT:FUR and Wikipedia talk:Guide to image deletion. I sincerely hope this puts to rest any flawed notion that this discussion is somehow biased because it's perceived to be happening in the wrong place.
 * Also, the notion that we should continue as we have been and not require either side to have formal consensus is rubbish. No consensus can only mean two things; keep or delete. You can't partially keep or partially delete something. The question we're asking is what the default case should be. We're clarifying that, and there's nothing wrong with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that WP:DGFA never references images, except in the "see also" section. It's blatantly clear that guideline is in reference to articles and secondarily categories. What we are referenced to is Guide to image deletion. That guideline does not contain any verbiage indicating "when in doubt, don't delete". The relevant area in that guideline is Guide_to_image_deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Files for deletion/Administrator instructions seems pretty specific for this section, yes? "If the decision is Keep (including any variant such as "Redirect" or "No Consensus")" --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll note of course that Files for deletion/Administrator instructions makes no reference to non-free media. That's the point we're trying to clarify. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, almost all deletion discussions are about non-free media, very few free media are nominated for deletion. In fact, the majority of files here on the EN Wikipedia are non-free media. Free media should, and usually do, go to Wikimedia Commons. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Most image use on Wikipedia is free content. There's about 300,000 fair use images on Wikipedia. There's almost twice that many free files. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Where did you find the 300,000 number? Until then, I'll strike that claim. I stand by the claim that most images up for deletion are the non-free ones, though, which is, I believe, what we are talking about. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you sum up the PAGESINCATEGORY for the non-free image daughter cats, you come up to a number in that ballpark, give or take shared categories. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More accurate would be to just use (although that counts non-free audio and other media in addition to images): . This compares to  total files uploaded locally, plus however many of the almost 5 million files from Commons that are in use here. Anomie⚔ 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus should always revert to keep. There are so much copyrighted material that unquestionably falls under NFC; that is either unlinked, uncontested or deleted via WP:SNOW. That is the spirit of the NFC rules. Many images are replaced with free content, reduced or eliminated after cool discussion or even heated debate. But the guidelines as interpreted by one zealous deletionist should not overrule the guidelines as interpreted by one passionate editor. No consensus = no change as per GRuban and others. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus = keep. Making a contentious change without consensus is more against the spirit of Wikipedia than fair use is. Those who say the Foundation believes otherwise should get an actual member of the Foundation to speak up about it. rspεεr (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever gotten a member of the Foundation to speak about fair use issues except the board's licensing resolution, and Mike Godwin's commenting on the legality of some issues (which isn't the same as our EDP). They always remain mute on the subject. Their lack of speaking on the subject can't be construed either as endorsement or rejection of no consensus and its meaning with regards to fair use images. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that. It's just that you have a tendency to phrase things as if you had the endorsement of the Foundation, as you did above. rspεεr (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One comment that was made by a member of the Foundation, which is worth remembering, was Kat Walsh emphasising that the licensing resolution was not adopted because of any perceived need to reduce fair use levels on en.wiki from those then prevailing; rather en.wiki was seen as epitomising best practice in this area, which the intention was to spread to the other wikis.  Jheald (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm normally on the side of keeping our non-free images to a minimum; if there is a problem with an image's rationale, then per the Foundation resolution, we should remove that image after fair warning to the uploaded - e.g. they encourage us to default to delete. However, of all the NFC criteria, #8 is the most subjective. If we were to take a hard nosed approach and say that "if there's no consensus that an image's rationale meets #8, we delete the image", then all we need is someone with a big NFC chip on their shoulder to challenge even a reasonably valid use of NFC, wait for any reverting and further discussion to falter out as no consensus, and issue a deletion on it. (That's not AGF, certainly, but I've seen what extent some editors will go through to get their way on their pet issues).  That said, we can't just let disputed NFC sit there indefinitely if there's no consensus; just as the hypothetical above example goes, there could be someone that is NFC-happy and inserts hundreds of images, knowing that by getting no consensus on the challenge of addition, they'll be kept. It's unfortunate that NFC is not as black-or-white as BLP violations, there where either it's factual information from a reliable source, or not and removed.  We're stuck with a highly subjective #8 (for the most part, #3a also comes into play a few times). I think the FfD process needs another step: when such is closed with a "no consensus", we need another venue with some fixed people on it (But still open to all) to help provide help and guidance for resolving the issue as part of the dispute resolution process.  It wouldn't be a hard-nose "yea/nay" vote here - it is expected that the editors would help to try to either strength (or guide how to strengthen) the ratioanles, cut down on numbers of images, and so forth all to help improve NFC compliance in a non-aggressive arena. Maybe this could be handled like WP:WQA or the like, I dunno, though definitely the idea of "cases" is the right concept. (I know there's some other possible venues that do this like the Mediation Cabal, but I think we need to keep this strictly to NFC issues such that those involved are well versed in how it works). But we need something stronger than a noticeboard - because of the NFC and Resolution issue, we need some type of final statement in either direction, not a perpetual "no consensus".  Thus, there would be some people, selected by the community, to be the final arbitrators of such NFC issues. --M ASEM  (t) 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could have a compromise: 1) "No consensus" results in "delete." 2) Reword NFCC #8 to make it harder to argue for deletion, or easier to argue for retention. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to lower the bar? Let in non-free content even if it is not significantly increasing reader understanding? Or have I misunderstood what you're saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Default to Keep - how Draconian to suggest otherwise, especially given the murkiness of NFCC policy in general; the "burden of proof" argument does not have a bearing on final outcome if one isn't obvious. <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•   18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like the idea of "Reword NFCC #8 to make it harder to argue for deletion, or easier to argue for retention" suggested by King of &hearts; .  <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•   18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about asking for a consensus for uploading an image? Seriously, the ones crying above about how hard it is to save an image from a FFD nomination should stop to think about how much of this is due to the fact that one needs no consensus at all to upload every sort of copyrighted crap to the site. --Damiens .rf 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've long thought that preventing instantaneous upload and article space distribution of images would greatly, greatly enhance our ability to achieve our Mission. There is soooooooooooo much crap uploaded it's patently absurd. An intermediary step f or copyrighted works would be wonderful. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Patrolled images, perhaps? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a fantastic idea, providing people did not assume everything was legit once an image was patrolled. Even the best of us have difficulty with the image policies in some cases, and remember that the situation in which an image is used can change- a non-free image may be perfectly legitimate in one article, but when that article changes (deleted, merged, even just developed) the non-free image may become redundant. An image being "patrolled" could not mean everything was ok, but it would at least help out with regards to new image patrol. I think this would be a good thing, but not for the reasons it has been proposed here. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Default to keep - Others above have covered it all, but mostly because "it's not needed" is given so much more weight than "it's needed". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, that's because you can't prove a negative. "It's needed" is meaningless; an explanation is required; and, as has been repeated above, the burden of proof to provide that explanation falls with those wishing to keep the content. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the explanation is often viewed as insufficient by some editors who interpret NFC8 more conservatively, therefore "no consensus".--Knulclunk (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Note: I have opened a discussion on a separate but related issue on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 43. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should default to delete Images and files are, for the most part, not the same as text additions. Content in the form of text is infinitely mutable, offering editors the chance to change text through editing (rather than just delete/keep/reupload).  Also the work involved in article making isn't comparable directly to image uploads.  We have some amazingeditors who work on image uploads and restoration, but 99% of all fair use images are web available and require no serious work on the part of the editor.  Deleting one of those is frustrating, but isn't exactly like deleting an article with 500 revisions.  Also, per the NFCC the burden is reversed. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that once an uploader feels that the burden has been provided a deleting editor can decide the rationale as insufficient and delete the image anyway. That is the problem. It all hinges on the interpretation of NFCC #8. Since the tools are in place for 99% of NFCC to be deleted easily, it is okay if that final 1% requires a higher standard from the deleter.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So if NFCC 8 is somehow magically clarified to be less subjective but no more permissive the editors opposing "no consensus defaults to delete" will be swayed? I doubt that. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently, there is no consensus in this discussion, but it is leaning towards deleting such images. Therefore, I am suggesting making NFCC #8 objective so that it is easier to meet it. I'm not sure what you mean by "no more permissive," since #8 is ambiguous over how permissive it should be. Right now, non-free FfD discussions are just a contest of who can make the other side look stupid. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built; let's first create such a clarification, and then see if both sides agree to the proposal. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [ec]Question To me, this is, as J Milburn states, a discussion about where the "burden of proof" lies.   As NFCC#8 is, by its very nature subjective, proof would seem to be pretty much impossible.  I'd like to 4 or 5 examples where they believe that the burden of proof for keeping a non-free image has been met just so I know what they are looking for.  Hobit (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some discussions that resulted in KEEP. Thaey are, as you can see, the exception.
 * Files for deletion/2008 November 16
 * Files for deletion/2008 September 8
 * Files for deletion/2008 September 8
 * Files for deletion/2008 September 8
 * --Knulclunk (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm aware of a number of keeps. I'm looking for things that the small group who has been pushing for these changes (say J Milburn, B) believe meets the burden in their mind.  Hobit (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At AfD, the rule is that there must be a clear consensus to delete. If there isn't one, then we don't delete it.  The NFCC make it clear that there should be a clear consensus to keep an image.  If there isn't one, then we don't use it, and NFCC must be either used or deleted.  FfD is the only deletion category that deals with non-free content, so "default keep free, delete non-free" only seems out-of-step with other processes for this reason.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is wrong criteria Our NFCC are largely not a matter that we are free to define and redefine on community whims, unlike most of our policies and guidelines. They are dictated by foundation policy and copyright laws.  As was alluded to above, the sole closing criteria should be whether the rationale to keep was valid or not.  This should be regardless of whether other people agree or disagree.  Dissent and challenges to the keep rationale should be viewed in light of whether they point out flaws in the fair use rationale, not whether a consensus per se exists or not.  Therefore, I propose that "no consensus" is an invalid closure for a FfD in the first place, and this discussion (as it is framed) is moot. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are saying a closing moderator will always have to make the decision on whether the rationale is valid or not. That will always be the OPINION of one editor. That seems to be the problem, yes?--Knulclunk (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A decision should be made one way or another based on the strength of the arguments presented in light of policy. Since the policy is not particularly subject to change based on consensus, a lack of consensus is not a valid reason to avoid making a decision. As was pointed out earlier, the deletion of a fair use image is not a huge deal.  If an error is made, the impact is minimal.  Gigs (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a copyvio make it to FfD without getting speedied. Foundation policy allows individual wikis to come up with their own non-free policies, so yes, these discussions do depend on consensus. If the NFCC were all objective, then we wouldn't even need discussions; it's the interpretation of #8 that requires a consensus. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that means. Every fair use image violates copyright if it is not used under circumstances that allow the copyrights to be violated legally.  In that sense, every fair use image is a copyvio.  We can't redefine the law through consensus here.  Our NFCC do tend to exceed the legal fair use requirements, but not by very much, considering that they are pretty vaguely defined legally.  We have far less wiggle room than you imply. Gigs (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Default to Delete And how can anyone say our Nonfree content is hard to understand. Our Mission statement, our Five pillars all state that our goal is the production of redistributive free content. That background casts the light on our NFCC as to reduce to the absolute minimum of encumbered content to fill our needs. If it can't be demonstrated a consensus exists on the need for the encumbered file, it should be removed. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  09:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus ---> keep I don't believe that arguments to allow this are strong enough to overcome our default of keeping things without consensus to delete. First, we already delete the vast majority of images put up for deletion.  There is no obvious need for this.  Second, I worry that this sets a bad precedent and will lead to other cases of defaulting to delete (BLP springs to mind).  I think we delete too much already and that's not where I think we should go.  Third, I worry that this is a back door for a number of "purely free" encyclopedia admins who regularly close FfD cases to remove images without consensus already to remove massive swaths of non-free images.  The last may seem paranoid, but I think it's a fair reading of the situation.  I'd be happier if those folks (say J Milburn, B, and a few others) would identify a handful of non-free images they feel we _should_ have here.  Hobit (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Default to delete of course. This isn't really up for discussion. Mission is clear.  howcheng  {chat} 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's up for discussion. One of the most frustrating things about image policy discussions is the tendency for one side to declare that disagreeing with them is equivalent to disagreeing with the mission of Wikipedia, when of course people can have differences within the mission of Wikipedia. In fact, to declare a Wikipedia process off-limits for discussion is considerably more against the spirit of Wikipedia. rspεεr (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.". There are some things that simply are not up for discussion. Regardless of how many people don't like it, even if a million editors here said "It's wrong", the licensing policy can not be eroded. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but every other policy with regards to images places the burden on the uploader: provide source and licensing, or it's subject to speedy deletion. Prove that the licensing is what you say it is, or it will be deleted after listing at PUF. Provide a fair use rationale, or it will be deleted. It only makes logical sense then, that valid arguments to use non-free images must be provided by those who want to use them.  howcheng  {chat} 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference with WP:PUF etc is that these are ultimately fairly black and white issues. But NFCC #8 is not.  It is a value judgment, made by the community.  As I wrote above, we already stack that process quite strongly against the uploader: arguments that go against policy are (quite rightly) discounted; saying "unnecessary, does not help reader understanding" is given great weight; but "valuable, does help reader understanding" is not; arguments to keep that do not join all the dots, but leave some of the links to policy unstated even if obvious, are quite often passed over; and, as image deletion often tends to be a focus for those arguing it; those wishing to keep tend to be far less aware as to how to state their case effectively.  So the barriers are already quite high for 'keep' arguments to be considered at all, and that is (in my opinion) where WP:NFCC acts to shape the decision.  But as GRuban has demonstrated above quite convincingly, if in the face of all of this plausible keep arguments can (and have) been made, such that, even having discounted such keep arguments as should be discounted, there is still no consensus to delete, then custom policy and precedent is that the image must be kept.  And, as I also pointed out above, there seems to be no evidence that this has left a great swathe of inappropriate images.  Nothing here goes against WP:NFC or the Foundation licensing policy. It has simply been implemented. Jheald (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet Wikipedia policy allows for non free content. If it were all so simple and pure, then there would be no non free content at all.  Fortunately greater minds have realised that taking that approach would damage the project and would limit its coverage of topics for which no non free content is available, thus it is allowed under certain conditions.  No one here is arguing that the non free content rules are hard to understand, that is simply a non-sequitur and a straw-man argument.  Our debate is primarily about how we should handle one particular criteria that is entirely subjective and so by it very nature one that is going to provoke a variety of opinions about particular cases.  We have seen the misuse of this "no consensus therefore delete" approach by some editors who seem to be on a mission to delete everything in sight who tenditiously create "no consensus" so that they can use their get out jail free card to delete the content after all, regardless of whatever opinions have been expressed by other editors.  Some of us here are getting a little weary of this approach and are calling for a re-exmination of how this particular clause should be dealt with. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  12:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote the policy, "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". Defaulting to keep in the case of non-free images is a bug in the implementation which evidently needs to be fixed.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that a valid rationale does not need to be provided. The problem is when the rationale is ignored or dismissed by a deleting editor.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is if there is no consensus that a valid rationale exists. I don't think deleting admins are ignoring the presence of rationales. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal NFCC #8 requires that a rationale be provided, it does not require that the rationale be accepted by all editors. I submit that logically therefore once a rationale has been provided, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the rationale is insuffiecient should revert back to those proposing deletion as is usually the case for deletion discussions. If the rationale is trivial then there will be no problem demonstrating that it fails and consensus will be easy to acheive. However when the rationale is arguable then this approach, requiring consensus to delete, will force those proposing deletion to show through the weight of argument that their case has merit. Remember this is only regarding NFCC #8, the image will still need to satisfy all the other criteria and the reverse burden of proof for those criteria will remain. Additionally it should be pointed out that #8 is not a fair use criteria. It is an additional burden imposed by the project upon itself, one which any reasonable editor would support, unfortunately some have been a little over zealous in their interpretation of it, to the detriment of the project in my opinion. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much what we have today, isn't it? An image missing one of the criteria is a candidate for speedy deletion, per WP:NFCC... I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's only when there's a dispute over validity that we come here. — PyTom (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This position instantly gives considerable weight to one person; the uploader. The opposite; default to delete, gives weight to policy. --User:Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. XfDs are to be judged by weight of argument.  Per WP:NFC, saying "unnecessary, does not help reader understanding" is given weight; but "valuable, does help reader understanding" without further elaboration is not.  However, an argument that goes beyond this and in detail spells out why an image adds to understanding, and which is not in any detail contested or rebutted, IMO constitutes rather more of a reasoned case, and therefore deseves more weight, than a bland generalised "does not help reader understanding" statement that does not consider any of the specifics of the case. That I think is what Nick Thorne is saying. Remember also: policy is not just about removing images.  Policy is also about keeping images where they do add significantly to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal to take an action based on the lack of consensus -- something which goes against the entire idea of how consensus works -- gives considerable weight to anyone who is willing to destroy consensus. It gives no weight whatsoever to the policy, because the only way that Wikipedia policies work is through a consensus of editors on what they say and what they mean. You would create the opposite situation, where the way to make things happen would be to disagree. That is insane. rspεεr (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Rspeer! I haven't had anyone infer I'm insane recently. It certainly took a lot longer period of me being off my meds this time before anyone noticed! How kind of you! Any further commentary from me reserved for people capable of conveying their thoughts and opinions without devolving into insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I was trying to get at in my earlier comment. The only way we can avoid taking specified action based on a lack of consensus is to classify "no consensus" as an invalid closure.  The admin should always just decide one way or the other based on the validity of the rationale based on policy and the arguments made against it.  Taking any action, either keep or delete, based on the mere lack of consensus is problematic. Gigs (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You put too much weight on the act of deleting, as if the act of uploading wasn't also important. Isn't uploading an image, "to take an action based on the lack of consensus"? We don't ask for a consensus before uploading an image, and this gives the uploader too much power. That's the sole reason most of the images listed at FFD are deleted anyway. An image shouldn't be uploaded in the first place if there's no consensus to use it. But since there's no way to enforce it, the forum do discuss such consensus if FFD. If you like it, it could be renamed from "Files for Deletion" to "Post-uploading Image-Proposal Discussion". --Damiens .rf 12:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The uploader too much power? Are you serious? The uploader, just like any editor, should have nearly limitless power. Only actions that limit the individual editor should require a consensus.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no. You don't build a successful collaborative project by giving limitless power to individuals. --Damiens .rf 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do you if some peole act with scant regard for the opinons of others in the project. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  13:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws there Damiens. Perhaps you would prefer it if there were no NFCC images within Wikipedia, but wait, Wikipedia policy allows for non-free content, it's just some people seem unable to accept that any such material is justified.  I would like you explain in detail why it is that you think your opinion on images to delete is so much more valid than those of other editors that have provided rationales in good faith and in accordance with policy.  Or maybe I'm wrong.  As an active participant in the effort to ensure that NFCC policy is followed, it should not be too hard for you to provide links to, say, half a dozen examples of images you have nominated for deletion where you were convinced by the arguments providing NFCC #8 rationales and subsequently withdrew your nomination.  This would make it much easier for others to continue to accept that you act in good faith on NFCC deletion discussions. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  13:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia policy allows for non-free content, it's just some people seem unable to accept that any such material is justified." That's not a fair characterisation.  After all, one could easily say "It's just some people are unable to accept that not all non-free content is suitable for use."  Wikipedia allows non-free content to be used in specific circumstances.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Those specific circumstances are if it's ok by law to use them. Did I get it right? Do I get a cookie? Most of these people probably never heard of the free culture movement. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you got it frighteningly wrong. One of the most basic, incontrovertible facts about our fair use policy is that it is deliberately more restrictive than the law. That lets us deal with images that cross the line as policy problems, not legal problems. rspεεr (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You totally missed my attempt at humor, but I'll blame myself for that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yyyep, I did totally miss that. Well. It's good to know that there is at least one more thing we agree on -- that the only kind of lawyers who should be involved in NFCC issues are armchair (Wiki-)lawyers. rspεεr (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Our historical policy is almost assured deletion of NFCC unless a significant rationale is offered and supported by multiple editors. If we consider King of Hearts initial query is answered by Gigs wise response. (No discussion can be closed without consensus) then perhaps we keep policy as is?--Knulclunk (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah maybe that would be a better approach, rater than changing the meaning of "no consensus" based on context, change the instructions to say that closing debates about disputed non-free content should virtually never be closed as "no consensus" in the first place. Only if after close analysis the rationales to keep and delete are truly evenly matched in light of the policy it can maybe be considered if the debate have run it's cause (if not re-list instead). When the question is if something comply with policy or not "no consensus" is not a very satisfactory answer (especially when the policy says that failure to comply merit deletion), it should never be an "easy way out" for closing a complex debate in order to clear a backlog, but rater a very last resort that need to be carefully justified and generally avoided. --Sherool (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It should default to keep. A file should be considered important until proven obviously otherwise. --Rockstone (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the policy behind it says. Policy makes it clear that there should be a clear consensus to use NFC in a given context, and the onus is very much on those seeking to use it to justify it.  The process should reflect this.  Articles, templates, etc. are all entirely free content, hence this doesn't apply, so we ask for a clear consensus to delete.  For non-free content at FFD, the process must ask for a clear consensus to keep the image, otherwise the NFCC are rendered toothless.  It would also make administrators think more carefully about closing contentious discussions, rather than simply closing them for the sake of it.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably one of the best rationale for why FFD, when NFC is involves, needs to default to deletion when no consensus is there. We are not talking about free contributions that have been made by WP editors (or others); we are talking about works that belong to someone else. --M ASEM  (t) 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. FfDs shouldn't result in a no consensus. But the ambiguity in NFCC #8 inevitably leads to that. Make it objective, and we won't be having this discussion anymore. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note added after archiving. The result of this discussion was called, at least in one DRV, as follows: The question at issue is whether no consensus defaults to delete where NFCC-related discussions are concerned. Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File history for images
Is there an appropriate template such as ArticleHistory for files. I am attempting to preserve the history of at File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg. The WP:FFD was closed as no consensus, but who is an oversighter deleted the file due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy with notice to me to black out or omit private data. I would like to properly document the history of this file on its page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)
 * I've had extensive discussion with Tony on how to properly redo the picture in a manner that is acceptable, and he has done so and reuploaded the image. I am at a loss at this point why Tony is being so insistent on the oversighted history being restored, because is has affect on its use or legality in regard to copyright release.  I ask you nicely at this point, Tony, to please drop the stick and walk away from the horse.  As I've explained to you, you are not going to be getting the file history back and no amount of postings will change this.  If you have issue, once again I tell you to email oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org which you still have not done.  Keegan (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not asked for the file history back. I have asked to link an unoversighted discussion to an image.  Do you understand what I am asking for?  Please attempt to do so before replying.  I have almost got what I want, but need some help with the syntax.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you mean oldifdfull which is transcluded on File talk:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg?  howcheng  {chat} 03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with using Twinkle to tag images in articles
For those of you who use Twinkle to add image deletion tags to captions, there is a bug that causes the preexisting caption to be hidden, by the addition of a superfluous | mark. This has been reported here, and seems related to this earlier bug report, but has yet to be fixed. This should all go without saying, but 1) the captions are necessary to evaluate the use of the image within the article, often providing commentary or at a minimum, identification; 2) relevant deletion procedure states that the tag should be added to the caption, not replace it; and more fundamentally, 3) there is certainly no valid reason to remove the captions while the images remain within the article, particularly when the removal is not constructive but rather accidental. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed.  Until the bug is fixed, I see only two solutions: either refrain from using Twinkle to tag images, or go back and manually fix the captions in every image you tag with Twinkle.  Postdlf (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

November 4
Why is the transclusion for November 4 not working right? Gigs (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was missing the "=== November 4 ===" header until about an hour after your post. Normally Zorglbot adds that in, but for some reason it didn't happen for that day. If I had to guess, it may be that the bot will only create the page and not edit it if someone has already done the creation combined with the bot apparently running at 1am rather than midnight since October 26. Anomie⚔ 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FFD with template on file page but no discussion added
On File:Unemploy sj1.gif Twinkle managed to add the FFD template to the file but not the corresponding rationale to Files for deletion/2009 November 4. I managed to get entries for on down for the related images, but not on this one. Can some admin delete this image as well. I can restart with another FFD, but on this latest batch and all previous noms there haven't been a response. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Putting a date navigation box at the bottom of a daily page
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)

Orphan
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)


 * 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, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


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

Problem with "notify" link
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: "<tt> [ notify] </tt>". This link no longer works properly. Can someone knowledgeable fix it? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Cool, thanks. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

XfD logs
See Village pump (miscellaneous). Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User submitting mass deletions of files
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)
 * 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)

Orphaning files in order to speedy delete
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Remove acronym list from edit notice?
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)
 * Strongly agree with this. As has been shown in the response to some recent nominations that used a selection of these, they are unnecessarily confusing. Peripitus (Talk) 09:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I couldn't agree more.  They're a menace; and I don't think they help clear thinking from nominators.  It's no bad thing to write out "Low Quality" in full, and think "Is this image really low quality?" rather than fire off and forget a quick, cryptic LQ.  And "Encyclopedic use not clear" is so much more expressive and honest than a mysterious UE.  Please let's deprecate them. Much better all round, both for those tagged, and for those doing the tagging.  Jheald (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They are useless and really not very Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the party, but I strongly oppose this (having created the editnotice specifically to list the acronyms). Go ahead and deprecate all use of the acronyms; that's the best solution. But until that happens, it is unacceptable for editors (like Fastily) who make nominations almost solely comprising two-letter acronyms that most people do not understand (including me, until a link was provided) to do so without making it plainly obvious what these mean. I put them in the editnotice because there is no other way I could devise to easily inform those who are not regulars at FfD what they mean. ÷seresin 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

2008 July 30 nominations cut
This old edit appears to have accidentally removed a series of nominations. I just noticed this after removing a few ifds from images that did not appear in the final version - I first thought the missing ifd links resulted when the nomination process gets interrupted (as happened on Commons sometimes). -84user (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion
There's a discussion occurring at WP:VPPR which involves this process. Your participation in the discussion there would be helpful. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Notices on articles and/or talk pages
The instructions currently read "If the image is in use, also consider adding to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." This should be made mandatory. An image in use in an article is part of that article's content, and a non-free image has no independent right to exist on WP outside of the articles that use it. There is no "due notice" if those interested in an article are never alerted that elements of its content may be deleted. Those who regularly edit and have watchlisted an article are going to be those most likely able to correct a sourcing issue with an image it uses, or to improve a non-free use rationale. Or, at a minimum, placing a notice in the image caption or on the article's talk page provides prompt notice that its editors need to find a free replacement ASAP.

Notifying the uploader should be considered less important, as no one owns uploaded images, particularly if the image is in use in articles, and there is no guarantee that an uploader will remain active with the project. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that this should be made mandatory. Now some overzealous deletionist go ahead while trying to avoid a proper discussion. Moreover, I would prefer a guideline where before any action is taken to tag or delete an image the one proposing to delete the image should first try to find a solution with the uploader and/or significant editors of an article to place the appropriate rationale in line with WP:AGF. - DonCalo (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend that notifying the uploader and the talk page are of equal importance. I would suggest though rather than manually do all this that a bot might be in order for this. That way when someone nominates an image for deletion, a bot can then post a message on the uploaders page and the talk page of the article that the image resides. And maybe even the associated talk page wikiproject banners. Just a suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good suggestion. How hard is that to implement?  postdlf (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Anyone? How can we implement this?  postdlf (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We already have bots that can do some of this work. Twinkle, which I use when reviewing and tagging many images, notifies the uploader and it used to add a notice to the image within its article use but, following this bug discussion article tagging was turned off because it was causing the image caption to become hidden and User:Sambot #12 is supposed to be doing that job, however I have not seen that bot working recently perhaps this post has relevant. Maybe someone can fix it or contact Sam Korn directly. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

skeleton (sports) imagery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canfield_skeleton.jpg should be replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brady_Canfield_skeleton_start_2.jpg which is an un-photoshopped, higher resolution copy of the original image already on commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.99.121 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, it's indeed better suited for the articles, so I replaced it. However, I see no need to delete it, it's a perfectly free and good image after all. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Daily log pages
As Zorglbot who usually creates the log pages is currently gone, I've created some log pages within the last days. As I can't do this forever, it would certainly be helpful if someone with more time/editing options like AWB or a bot could pre-emptivily create some pages. Just note that {{subst:ffd log}} won't do it currently, as there's no option to overwrite the day. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

THERE'S A FILE I'D LIKE TO DELETE. MY PHOTO. NO LONGER USED IN AN ARTICLE.

DELETION PROCEDURE IS INSANELY COMPLEX. SO I'M JUST LEAVING IT THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion
An editor uploaded a bunch of public domain images (older than 100 years). However he neglected to add a source (they're all from his personal collection) and so they were speedy-deleted when he wasn't looking. Can I just undelete them and add the source, or is there a procedure like DRV that has to be followed?  Will Beback   talk    01:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure is to simply undelete them and fix the source/licence. less hoops to jump through is always better. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating multiple files for deletion
Are there any instructions on how to do this? Theleftorium (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Low Quality
Why is LQ/Low Quality being thrown around like so much flotsam? IT's being applied to images of VGA resolution and higher with no artifacts. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about "no consensus" result
I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process about the proper course of action for "no consensus" results here—there seems to be a contradiction between the instructions on this page and the instructions at Deletion process. Please contribute to the discussion there if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New essay
Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's partially in quote form, however at some point, I'll probably convert it to prose. Anyway, comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia running out of space?
There seem to be a lot of images being nominated with the rationale: "Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use" or similar. Looking at these images, most of them were likely in use in articles years ago (e.g. 2004, 2005 etc) when Wikipedia was young and better free images were not available. Should we really be deleting these? If someone wants to look back at how an article has progressed over Wikipedia's history, seeing what images were used in old revisions in helpful. It is only because the software does not record that images are in use in old revisions of articles that they appear "orphaned".

If we have the server capacity to keep images used in old revisions of articles, I think we should do so. They form a part of Wikipedia's history. If others agree, could we stop deleting images on this basis please? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this time, deleting an image doesn't save any server space because the image is still kept on the servers, it's just no longer publicly accessible. Although the sysadmins may at some point actually delete these images from the server, I don't think they intend to ever do so. In general, we shouldn't worry about performance, because they will tell us if something really is a problem. I think these deletions are more for reasons of "we're not your free image host" and reducing the needle-in-a-haystack problem in finding high-quality images. Anomie⚔ 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Instructions for listing files for deletion - Part 3: Give due notice
Inform the uploader: What to do if the uploader is no longer active on Wikipedia?

Please, change "If the image is in use, also consider adding to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." with "If the image is in use, also add  to the caption(s), and add a notice to the article(s) talk pages." (this should/must be a mandatory requirement.)

IMHO, it would be great if, when a file is deleted, someone goes to edit all articles involved, because those red links in articles in the mainspace are demeaning.

Happy editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Wikipedians; unsure syntaxer here.
I'm not sure about the entire format for submitting an image for deletion; could I just put the link up and let wiki do the rest?

commons:File:Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2010.jpg

Thank you in advance. ~ A passing person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.55.167 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a commons image and looks fine. What do you think is wrong with it that would warrant its deletion? ww2censor (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend Date format
Hi I've seen a people changing the format of dates to what they think is correct e.g. from WP:DATESNO. currently we have YYYY Month DD, this doesn't seem to fit with the rest of WP. Is it possible to change the way the subpages are created and maybe a few templates to use DD Month YYYY. I understand this might be a whole HEAP of work so a workaround would be to add redirects to the current format for now so both formats work? Lee&there4;V <font color="#a3bfb1">(talk • <font color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing this would break a huge number of bots and scripts, confuse users used to the current system, and make this process inconsistent with WP:AFD, WP:TFD, and other processes that use daily subpages. And for what benefit? None that I can see. Anomie⚔ 12:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They're all like that? Ah I see. My reasoning being I noticed that the link to deletion discussion for the image in Tea_Party_movement keeps getting changed in good faith by editors to the format they are used to... OK since the current format is so intrinsic to current admin, I'll scratch the change proposal, but maybe we could consider a duplication of the dates to other format with a redirect to the existing ones. That wouldn't break anything and only the bots that create the subpages would need have a few extra lines? Obviously I would have to suggest this higher up to cover the other pages, not sure where just yet... Lee&there4;V <font color="#a3bfb1">(talk • <font color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "keeps getting changed in good faith" in that example, it seems more like "Pointer1 doesn't understand how it works, and it should be explained to him/her". SoxBot did it wrong to start with, Pointer1 adjusted the date format, you really fixed it, and then Pointer1 broke it again. Anomie⚔ 14:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

PDFs containing only images
I am currently trying to analyse the image uploads for this Contributor Copyright Investigation. The contributor has uploaded several PDF files which contain only images (e.g. File:Roja hatim .pdf or File:Qibla.pdf) and I was wondering if the fact that single images shouldn't really be in PDF format was a suitable criteria for deletion? Boissière (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the images are free and useful, the images can be saved and uploaded separately, then the originals can be deleted. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Transclude templates?
Just wondering, why do we have to substitute the Ffd2 and Ffd2a templates? This adds a large chunk of unnecessary code in each file entry on the discussion page. Why not simply transclude? Reh man  01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture of a secret airplane may not be permitted non-free use
Originally in a talk page: Your original decision should be a sticky note on some important page. Too often in Wikipedia, administrator just do things based on whim. When you put well thought out decisions on a post it board, then gradually administrative decisions can be consistent. Murder articles can also use some fair treatment. People claim "other crap exists" but the more fair and consistent we are, the better it is for Wikipedia. Suggestions? Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, since this appears to be taking the form of "settled case law", as they might say in the legal system. I have no idea where you would go about putting such a "sticky note", but the idea is a good one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Decision explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#Chengdu_J-20.jpg

Aftermath: Despite protest and howls that it should be non-free use, a free use photo was eventually found....a photo of a top secret plane. This should illustrate that free use is often possible, even with top secret things.

Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming files
Hello, can FFD handle renaming files? File rename requests are currently causing problems at WP:RM (it's out of scope) See discussions at User_talk:Harej and File_talk:Portrait_of_Edward_James.jpg. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

burden of proof does not link to Wikipedia: Burden of proof
I've no idea how to edit the box up top to fix thisRip-Saw (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Files for deletion → Files for discussion — There may be other options. Japanese knotweed (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose – Misleading and confusing. Users should be made aware of the very real possibility of deletion from the start, not kept in the dark. Discussion is for talkpages; the new title would inevitably lead to users using this as a forum for discussion which should be kept on the talkpage. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator also proposed similar moves for WP:AfD (1) and WP:MfD (2), both of which failed to gain sufficient support. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and expand FFD to cover renaming of files, since this is not handled by WP:RM due to the need of deleting the file and reimporting it, which is distinct from moving a Wikipedia page around. There is currently no process area that covers renaming of files that need discussion. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't there? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a change from previously. Still, WP:RM does not handle files. 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That pages should really be linked to somewhere prominently at the top of the the WP:FFD page. I wasn't aware of it's existence either. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that page but that doesn't help if a move is likely to be controversial (although I can't see why this would be the case for a file but I don't really work in that area so may be wrong). Dpmuk (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as being a very good idea. There's no real reason to have the dated pages for file moves.  I would think they would mostly be non-controversial and could be handled with tagging. --B (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's POV pushing in article names, template names, etc, therefore, there would be cases of the same with file names, so I would think there would be controversial naming and renaming issues with some files. If some file is controversially named, and the rename target is also controversial, there should be a place to discuss that, right? 65.93.14.50 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a solution trying to create a problem. Unlike with article names, there's no necessity for filenames to use the most common name for a topic or any such thing, so (1) controversial filenames can be avoided completely and (2) if it's a free image, it should be moved to Commons anyway, so it's not a problem that has to be solved here.  How many topics are there where we need a fair use image and there is some necessity to name it something controversial?  Case in point - there was recently an argument over whether to refer to those who oppose abortion as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion".  For articles, that's a real problem on which people have heart-felt opinions.  But for images, it doesn't matter - if it's a free image, move it to commons and if it's a fair use image, I can't imagine a reason you would need to use either wording in the filename. --B (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I moved most of the files in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming so now it is empty. For most of the files adding a rename media is ok. But I do not know where it can be descussed if there is a dispute about the name. If needed I suggest to create a page for discussions. That way FFD does not have to change - it works now so why change it? --MGA73 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and rename AfD/MfD/FfD is a perennial proposal.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment does a filespace redirect work for accessing files? Or do files that are renamed need to have all inclusions also renamed? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does so a file could be moved without changing the articles etc. that uses the file. But if a file excists on Commons it will "win" over the redirect. And if usage is not changed it is harder to see if a file is used and where. So normally the best thing is to change the articles etc. after a rename.


 * Comment is this the place for asking for a revert on file versions? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Something other than deletion or not is a rarity here. –CWenger (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As discussed above, there is no need to expand the scope (and therefore no need to rename the process, which probably would cause significant confusion).  —David Levy 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Might this image qualify?
File:BatmanBBlogo.jpg -- Might this image qualify for deletion based on the resolution (as a non-free logo)? Resolution is an issue about which I have always had some confusion. In part, each person's idea of "low resolution" is somewhat different. It seems like a far overly-needed size yet isn't of crisp quality, but as you know, reducing an uploading over the file name doesn't mean anything; it can be undone. (Oh, and he lies about the resolution in his notes as if trying to hide the fact; his talk page shows several image-related violations over twp years+) — CobraWiki ( jabber 03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi CobraWiki. You're right in the sense that this image does not meet our image policy - it fails Wikipedia's non-free content policy, criterion 3b due to its high resolution. However, this problem does not involve the image being deleted - images are tagged with Nfr, and a bot automatically downsizes them. I'll tag it now myself, just thought I'd let you know for the future :) Regards, Acather96 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I've also tagged it for deletion as I don't think the image's FUR adequately explains how it meets WP:NFCC. Acather96 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FFD log page date headers
As some may know, a bot, Zorglbot, up until it was blocked for malfunctioning on March 26, was creating the pages on FFD and adding the date headers. Since the bot's blocking, some people have added the date header, but pages have mostly been going without, which has been causing problems on the main FFD table of contents, unless someone adds the header in manually. I have changed the way FFD's table of contents displays to hide the problem for now, but it should be fixed so that the dates are automatically added to the tops of the log pages. The same problem also appears to have spilled over to PUF as well, as Zorglbot created pages there as well.

As there has been no move to bring Zorglbot back from the dead, we need to find a replacement for this function. Considering the missing bot went unnoticed for two and a half weeks, manually adding headers seems to not be a viable solution. Thus it would seem that we need to find another bot to take this task. Considering that AnomieBOT automatically closes many FFD discussions, it might be worthwhile to reach out to that bot's maintainer to seek approval for that task? What do folks think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Question
Images that are both tagged as free and non-free cannot exist. An image is either free or non-free. Is there a template for CSD of these or should I start Filling mass IfDs for these files? ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you post some examples ? I've seen this where the image is a derivative work (non-free) but the modifier of the image is releasing the extra bits added under a free licence - Peripitus (Talk) 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ~betacommand/reports/miss_tagged_files.txt is a full listing of files that are tagged as both free and non-free at the same time ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that CSD is inappropriate for things like this as although one tag is probably (but not always) a mistake, we don't know whether it's the free tag or the non-free tag. If it's the former, then if a FUR exists, is valid and in use then we shouldn't be deleting it; otherwise we should be dealing with it in the standard way we deal with images that have no/incorrect FUR or are unused. If the incorrect tag is the non free one then the images is free and we shouldn't be deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first entry on the list is a good example of the situation Peripitus described. It's a photo of a copyrighted sculpture, but the photographer has placed their bits into the public domain. Besides it being possibly confusing, what's the specific problem with that situation that would require FfD, let alone speedy deletion? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An image cannot be licensed both as free and non-free at the same time. its like saying your a vegan and eating meat. they cannot co-exist. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not the solution, fixing the image page is. Don't be lazy. If nothing else, treat them as non-free and check for a valid FUR. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, just as VernoWhitney says, an image can be tagged with both a free and a non-free tag with an accompanying completed rationale. A copyrighted sculpture may have a non-free tag but the photo itself may be freely licenced. It does happen and each tag is appropriate for an image such the first entry on the list. If you disagree about a specific image you can always bring it to FFD for a wider discussion but I suggest not doing so just because you disagree with what other say here. These are certainly not clear cases for CSD unless there is an incomplete rationale but even those can sometimes be fixed with a little effort. ww2censor (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive sequence is a muddle
The archive sequence is currently a muddle. The oldest archive is in fact Archive 6; then Archives 7, 8 and 9; then Archives 1 to 5; then Archive 10. (This is because there was a page rename, then several years later the archives of the old page were moved to be archives here, but out-of-sequence).

Could someone with the power to move over redirects sort this out, and move them around into chronological order?

Best regards, Jheald (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eep. Ok, I'll see what I can do. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There, appears to be fixed. Look ok? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many many thanks. Goodness knows how it happened.  I've fixed a few redirects that were left pointing to the wrong pages.  Jheald (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank _you_ for finishing up the cleanup. Sorry I missed that myself.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Old revisions of files
Is FFD able to handle requests for deletion of old file revisions? ATM I have to try and find an admin to do it each time, and was wondering if there was a 'proper' way to do it. If there isn't, I think we should try and implement something into FFD, and update the relevant instructions. Thoughts? Acather96 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggst that we just move all free (and usable) versions to Commons and delete everything when done (add a "NowCommons" when done). If only some versions should be deleted for some reason it would probably be better to create a special template to add on the files. FFD should only be used for deletions that need a discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal - split non-free files and free files
I'd like to propose the idea of splitting up FFD into Free files for discussion and Non-free files for discussion. We don't have to have a formal !vote or anything right now - call this an informal straw poll to see if we can refine our procedures a bit. A problem with FFD is that there are at least three distinctly classes of content that come here:
 * "Crap to delete" - orphaned and unlikely to be used images that are almost always non-controversially deleted.
 * Images where an editorial decision needs to be made - these are images that, while freely licensed, have some problem like being of remarkably poor quality or, perhaps their accuracy is in dispute.
 * Non-free images where removals are being considered in accordance with our non-free content policy for reasons other than editorial discretion - in most cases, we would use these images if they were freely licensed or if we were writing a blog, but because of our interest in promoting free content, we decline to use most copyrighted content.

I think FFD works fairly well with the first ans second group of images, but I think our processes could be refined for the third group. With a separate page, we could focus our time/energy on evaluating the more controversial FFD nominations instead of having to wade through 50 non-controversial ones to find the one that matters. We could also fine-tune the instructions for WP:NFFFD to help users who may not be familiar with our non-free content policies to understand what issues they should be considering when opining whether to keep or remove the image. We could also consider expanding the scope of WP:NFFFD to include discussions about potentially removing a fair use image from one page that it is on, while allowing it to continue to be used elsewhere. (eg, suppose File:JeanLucPicard.jpg is used not only on Jean-Luc Picard, where its use is relatively non-controversial, but also on Patrick Stewart, where its removal was contested. WP:NFFFD would provide a suitable forum for discussing this removal in the light of our non-free content policies, as opposed to the article talk page, which likely attracts little attention from those familiar with the policies.)  Any thoughts? --B (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as proposed by, this is a very good idea. It makes sense to have two separate processes for images of free/non-free status. Additionally, in some cases certain images could be moved to Wikimedia Commons. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsure I see the benefits, but why not just introduce a category system? That would eliminate two different project pages and their subpages, making everything more centralized and easier to find, while still grouping the discussions by type. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another idea-- probably we should not be voting quite yet, so we can have more productive discussion.... How about a prod process for images? A lot of the stuff I tag is in the "crap to delete" category and could very easily be tagged so that a few interested people to have a look over a prod category before they all get thrown out. There could be a gallery view for the images-to-be-deleted prod category, which would make assessing these requests even easier. I'm not sure exactly what the criteria would be for prod images (the same? expect it to be non-controversial? also has to be orphaned?) but I think that could work really well and allow people to focus on discussions that actually need attention. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A PROD system has been talked about before. We kinda have that already with the nld, nsd, nrd, etc, tags.  My concerns with the prod are twofold: (1) there is no process for follow-up on de-prodded images other than hoping the tagger checks their contributions and (2) the category view removes the ability to skim through the deletion rationales and look for ones that may need followup.  But you do have a great idea with the gallery view, though.  What if we had a bot automatically add thumbnails for all free images nominated for deletion?  That gives us the benefit of the gallery view, but without losing the ability to see rationales too. --B (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to oppose the scope of this, but I understand the motivations behind it. As far as free images are concerned for #1, they can (and IMO should) almost always be moved to Commons, as it makes said content more open to use on more wikis, not to mention, that's their mission as a free image repository. (Non-free orphaned images are being appropriately handled so far, so there is no comment with regard to that.) With regards to #2, if there are problems with a specific image as far as the image itself, that's what the article talk and file talk pages are for. I'm not exactly understanding #3, however; are you asking for some sort of a "file removal discussion" or similar? –MuZemike 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have a look at the current FFD deletions (see many of my nominations at bottom) if you believe that there isn't a good amount of crap to be deleted. I'm pretty liberal as far as moving to commons goes, but there are tons of myspace-style userphotos, logos for non-notable companies, garage bands, doodles made in Paint, blurry low-res photos of unidentified dogs, etc. In general, yes, there are a lot of images that should be moved to commons, but that doesn't mean there's not a lot of crap to delete too. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not the specific question asked here, but I think that a similar, and perhaps more useful, idea is being discussed at Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. Might that be a better approach, regardless of free/non-free? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - de-centralization might curb input. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of doing this is to get more input because you won't have to wade through the non-controversial "crap for deletion" nominations to find the few controversial ones that matter. --B (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, better idea I don't see how this would help anything. I have listed and commented on both free and non-free images. Asserting that an image deletion is going to be controversial or not controversial just because it is free or because it is non free is an incorrect assertion. If we want to divide FfD in such a way as to separate the controversial from the non-controversial, I suggest we split it between orphaned images and non-orphaned images (in order to be on the orphaned image page, the image must have been orphaned for a good while, it can't be a remove and list for deletion in one swoop deal). A solid majority of noncontroversial FfD deletions are depreciated math/chemistry diagrams, self portraits, unusably bad quality images of subjects that have images of them already, and a fair deal of unencyclopedic unclassifiable junk. The common denominator for all of those is that they were/are orphaned for significant periods of time, sometimes never being used at all. Just about every single controvertible FfD, heck just about every single FfD I've seen even discussed, is one of a currently used file or of a file that was used, but removed right before the FfD was filed.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass DR of "crap"
As long as FFD is not flooded I think it is ok to keep everything at the same page. But the suggestion above gave me an idea. We could start a big cleanup of all unused files. I have not checked how many that would be but it could be easily be 10,000 files or it could perhaps be 200,000 files or more.

I bet if we add so many files to FFD it will make the system break down. So if we are going to make a mass cleanup we need a better system to handle that.

I'm also active on Commons and I think it is a bad idea just to move everything to Commons. It should only be moved there if it is realistic that the file can be used for something.

One way is to add a "Category:Unused file for possible deletion" (or whatever) to all the unused files + add a notice to all uploaders with unused files. Then we can all look through the files and move the files we want to keep to "Category:Unused files suggested to move to Commons" (can be done with hotcat). Then a bot can move them or they can be moved manually. After some time (3 months?) we can start delete the remaning files (if they are still unused). Either a mass deletion or add a few hundred files in a "Category:Final chance to save this file as of (date)" and if file is still there in 7 days and is unused it could be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A problem with "Category:Unused files suggested to move to Commons" is that a large number of the images that get moved to Commons under the idea of "let's move our unused crap to Commons" turn out to be copyvios. I am often astounded when I find and start cleaning out someone's obvious copyvios that I'll find even regular users who blindly? moved a web-resolution image over to Commons.  If an image is web-resolution or lacks EXIF data, and the user claims to be the author, it needs to come under some level of scrutiny more than "it's a pretty pic, let's keep it". --B (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:
 * Any "mass" process should be done separate from any regular process, through an RFC type process, so that it's progress can be tracked.
 * In my opinion, any "mass" file cleanup drive should start with "move all free files to commons". Look, I realize that most of you guys who are interested in the maintenance of the files namespace are interested because there's a tendency for y'all to be "free culture" advocates (or whatever... "free should be free"). There's a lot of numbers thrown around about "thousands of non-free files", but the fact is that we just don't know how many free vs. non-free files there are. Files that are actually and unequivocally free ought to be at Commons anyway, since that's what it's there for. Doing that will really clarify what's free and non-free, as well. Then we can concentrate on arguing about what non-free files are actually useful enough to be retained here. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Files that are free and unequivocally free should be at Commons - the problem is that a lot of files tagged as free are really obvious copyvios. I have no earthly idea what the numbers are, but consider this challenge: open up 20 tabs from the random file link.  (I don't know about other browsers, but in Firefox, you can do this by wheel-clicking on Special:Random/File 20 times.)  I can all but guarantee you that you will find some "free" files that are at least somewhat dubious.  For instance, I just did it and found File:Ifmsa-int-logo.svg, File:Washington Ave.jpg (I'm sure the photo is user-authored and it was uploaded in good faith, but the text is copyrightable), File:EU Members anno 2007 (blank).png (source given is "photoshop", but I'm sure this map is a derivative work of something and whatever that something is might be copyrighted or even a "free" license, but if it's a CC license, then only CC-licensed derivatives are permitted), and File:The freedom tunnel.jpg (which is from flickr and does not match the flickr tag.  The uploader has a different name from the flickr user, so we have no way of knowing if they're the same person and because the image was not uploaded using our Commons flickr verification system, we will likely have to delete the image if we can't verify it).  I also got File:PBP.jpg, which is "crap to delete" and serves no purpose on Commons and File:WNBF.png (which is tagged fair use, but should be PD-ineligible).  That's from clicking for random files 20 times.  So it's unscientific, but four out of 20 of these clicks are supposedly free images that at the very least need further investigation, not just blind copying. --B (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I just happen to believe that getting free files onto Commons ought to be the top priority right now. Getting that done will accomplish much more than (for example) NFCC enforcement is currently accomplishing, you know? It'd be nice if we can get things to a point where all free content is on Commons, and we can tell people not to upload new free stuff here (although, that should never be forbidden, for obvious reasons. I should merely be discouraged, at some point down the road). One advantage to getting to that point is that we'd basically know that all images here on Wikipedia itself would need "policing". Catch my drift? — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, there is a lot of trimming, sometimes at the rate of dozens of files a day, of junk files. I see users nominate stuff, ususally in alphabetical order, or from a number of other lists filled with a good deal of junk files. The issue is that 50+ free use images get uploaded a day, and we don't do vetting of images very well. What really should be done is every day all the free images get checked, with most getting kicked to commons and the rest getting kicked to FfD. I think it's Multichill that generates the free use files list, I'd have to check. The issue with that is that it takes a lot of manpower. It is the same issue as with cleaning out junk now.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We already have a tool that lets you view orphan images: http://toolserver.org/~jason/orphaned_images.php. I'm not sure putting the images into categories will accomplish much. Cleaning out orphan images is really pretty slow. Nominating crappy ones for deletion is fast, but a lot of images require some detective work to figure out what they even are. And then you have to move to commons, check the formatting of the bot-generated new description page, and be sure to categorize them correctly at commons so that they're findable there. (Otherwise it's not much better having them there than here.) I think dealing with orphan images is a worthwhile project (I do it myself from time to time), but I don't think there is any viable way to speed up the process because what can be done with automated tools is already done by automated tools. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did not mention the non-free files because they are automatic nominated for deletion if they are unused.
 * One of the problems with moving files to Commons is that it takes time to check the files. You have to check if the file is a copyvio and if it is a unusable file. It can take a lot of time to find out if a file is a copyvio but it should not take much time to find out if the file is usable. That is why I suggested to start with the unusable files.
 * If everything was perfect we could just move all files tagged with "MTC". But many files in the old category is not eligible for Commons and therefore the category is not usable. It should be easier for "copyvio hunters" to find and tag the files in a category with only a few files so that is why I suggested a new MTC-category.
 * If some trusted users can review the files it does not take long to move them to Commons. So if we create a system where we do not just add a MTC but sort the files by reviewer it should be possible to mass transfer files reviewed by "experts" and to skip files reviewed by users that have not yet figured out which files could be moved to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW to give some idea of the scale of the project, there are ~55,000 orphan images in Category:All user-created public domain images alone. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment above; that is likely to get larger as time goes on. I've got other projects to do, but I'll add that to the list of things needing my attention, I might be able to knock out a few hundred in a week.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedural weirdness and an early close
Hi all,

The image File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg was by  at 16:41 on 23 July 2011. Subsequently, the image was under CSD F8 (image available on Commons) by  at 10:06 on 24 July. Admin —after doing the usual checks, but missing an ongoing deletion discussion on Commons—then deleted the image. I noticed this had happened when someone on Commons used the speedy as an argument in the deletion discussion there, and notified Alexf of the confusion, and he restored the image. So far so good.

However, when Alexf deleted the image, automatically closed the. The net result is that the full deletion discussion never reached a consensus; the image is still tagged as being considered for deletion; but the deletion discussion has been closed.

I am uncertain how to rectify this. I don't want to just remove the ffd tag, and reopening the discussion after it has been closed seems inappropriate. However, since the discussion was closed after less than 24 hours, the community did not have enough time to reach a consensus.

Could someone more familiar with the procedural stuff here advice or, preferably, step in? Thanks. --Xover (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. I suggest simply waiting to see what Commons does.  If they keep their copy, we can simply delete our's.  If they delete their's, then this one can be re-nominated, if desired.  I don't think resuming a deletion discussion that has been closed for five days is worthwhile nor, in any event, does it make sense to have a debate until the Commons discussion is closed. --B (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another bad experience
I'll just chime in to say I've also had a pretty bad experience with the image evaluation process in the July 20-23 period.

I know it is very easy to just look at an image and say "somethings wrong, delete it". But I want you to know-- every image you delete, you get an "F". Every time you hit delete from something other than nonsense, you have failed as an admin.

If copyright infos and rationale aren't up to snuff, FIX IT. Delete first and ask questions later is a lot more convenient for reviewers, I know-- but it pisses off hundreds of editors in the process and tells us not to waste our time trying to help WP.--Alecmconroy (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin chore needed
This File:J fred muggs-5.jpg film screenshot is about to be deleted under fair use review, but it was copied over a public domain photo with the same name. Can an admin perform a history split? The public domain file could be kept and copied to Commons. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Although the upload summary says that the underlying photo is "copyright expired" it is, in fact, still in copyright, since it does not date from before 1923, but from the 1950s. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, I had assumed the original uploader had verified that copyright had not been renewed (which was a requirement for the date). I don't see that in the history. So nevermind this request. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lichfield_Collage.jpg this collage image has no attribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.216.143 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Saved Tag
I saw a file once that said some image or something was considered for deletion, but it was decided to keep it. I thought I'd put it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernadette_pennies.jpg, which was scheduled but kept. Where's the tag and where do I put it? Thanks...Smarkflea (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating
So many files are currently nominated for deletion that the parser tags at the bottom of this page can't keep up! –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go. You don't have to be a Vulcan to work here, but it helps. Jheald (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Fastily and Xeno should knock it off with the cut-and-paste rationales. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is fine. As long as images which should be moved to Commons are moved rather than deleted. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Just noticed the Xeno is !voting keep on everything. Gah. Many of these should be deleted, just not all or even most. Fastily is giving compelling reasons for deletion, just sometimes pasting the same reasons for inappropriate images. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heck, he even posted "keep"s into already-closed discussions for images I'd deleted as having been transferred to Commons. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are files that should be deleted, then someone should opine and present a compelling deletion rationale nullifying my 'keep as default position' placeholders. Related discussion is ongoing at AN. I personally do not find the cut-and-paste rationale used by Fastily compelling for any image. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that Fastily has stopped making nominations, which is good. At first, I didn't realize that Xeno had mass-objected, and I spent a bit more time than I would have wanted to, looking at them file-by-file. And you know what? I found some where I agreed with Xeno that they should be kept, and at least one where I agreed with Fastily that it should be deleted. I really cannot imagine anyone going through all of the nominated files and making intelligent decisions about them all. Please let me suggest that someone close all the discussions in which Fastily and Xeno are the only commenters as "no consensus". And I'll extend a shameless invitation to Fastily and Xeno to read WP:AAFFD! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working on going through a lot and moving to Commons ones which I think should be. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion procedure
The above thread leads me to propose a change in procedure. As long as I can remember, FFD nominations that get no input from anyone but the nominator are always closed as "delete", even if the rationale is something unrelated to copyright and if the file is unabashedly free. Why don't we say that all nominations must receive at least one "delete" vote when copyright is not an issue? Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess there can be lots of times when an editor makes an entirely valid nomination for deletion, and no one else pays attention, and it still would be appropriate to delete. The problem seems to me to arise when there are simply too many nominations showing up simultaneously. And that has also been a recurring problem, that I remember seeing brought up for various users at WP:ANI at various times in the past. Perhaps what we need is a rule setting an upper limit (perhaps 20) for the number of files that can be nominated by a single user in a single day. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The closing admin who deletes the image is essentially a second "delete" !vote. Otherwise they wouldn't delete the image. Plus, not many people are real keen on the notion of slogging through image deletion requests.
 * Trytofish, I think that a cap is a decent idea, but it would prevent users making legit mass-nominations from doing so. There was one day I nominated 100+ images for deletion, and then the next day another 80 or so similar images, and they were all deleted (with a couple of other people commenting, IIRC). Why make that sort of nomination take 9 days and fracture discussion among 9 pages? –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, and I was wondering about that myself. Just in the spirit of tossing ideas around, perhaps a better approach would be to cap the number of nominations, as opposed to the number of files nominated. By this I mean that someone could nominate some large number of related files within a single header, with a single rationale, and that would count as just one nomination for these purposes. I assume from what you said that the 180+ images you nominated were, as you said, similar. So if some spammer had uploaded 500 worthless or obviously copyvio files in one day, someone could nominate all of those together as a set, and also nominate five other, unrelated, files, and that would count as six nominations, as opposed to 505. I'm entirely comfortable with the idea that if there are a bunch of related files in a group, and I look at a few of them and agree (or disagree for that matter) with the nominator, then I could make an informed comment about them all, and it's likely that the nominator exerted the same good (or bad) judgment for all of the files in the group. That, I think, is different from what has sometimes been a problem. Looking at the specific example of Fastily and Xeno disagreeing, it's pretty hard to believe that either one of them spent a lot of thought on each nomination, individually. In situations like that, I actually like the idea of making it take multiple days for editors to work their way through all of them. WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds more reasonable to me. I doubt many Wikipedians would be real keen on the idea—I'm still not myself, but it sounds better than your original idea. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not like I'm eager to push for it. I do think this discussion has been useful in evaluating the relative merits of various ideas. Perhaps the next time that there's an ANI dust-up about it, I'll float the idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that the admin is effectively the overwatch on this. They should take the time to review the image and assess whether it should be deleted and note the presented arguments. I think the situation is fine as-is. Introducing anything else adds more instruction creep. Buffs (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, seeing the discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb, I wonder whether Drilnoth's comments there actually point to the desirability of such a change. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Obligating nominators to inform the talk pages of articles where a file is still in use
It seems that some editors on wiki are taking the bare minimum route and nominating in-use images for deletion without any notice to the talk page of the article where that image is in use. I find this practise to be dishonest, manipulative, and in some ways, taking advantage of the system to get what you want done. The current guideline states:

If the image is in use, also consider adding to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

I would like to see this changed to:

If the image is in use in less than five articles (not talk pages or project pages), proper notice must be given at those articles by adding to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

This would, except in cases where the image is frequently used (in which case cleanup should be done prior to deletion), obligate nominators to make it more visible that an image, currently in use, may disappear tomorrow with no apparent warning. Despite statements otherwise, the editors of the article are the ones most likely to know why it is there and what purpose it serves; tey should have the opportunity to state their opinion before the fact rather than jumping through hoops after it disappears to figure out what happened and where it was discussed.

This of course would be akin to the fact that notification of nominations at Commons are now posted to the article talk pages by a bot (which could also be done here). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fake images?
I uploaded this image to help better The New Girl in Town article on 3 June 2011. The image was created by a Selena fan several years ago. The album is believed to be fake, however publications such as the Joe Nick Patoski book (1996) states otherwise. I am an agreement that the article is false, and there is currently a discussion about deleting the article. Aside from that, the image is not a fair use, rather a fan-created image that contains a non-free image of Selena herself as a teen in the mid-1980s. Can this image be nominated for deletion? Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Missed images
File:MOJLogo.jpg and File:Virgin.net.GIF have both been missed for deletion. They are tagged for deletion after 25 October and 28 October respectively. Cloudbound (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:AEGON-logo.PNG has also been missed, having been available for deletion since 4 November. Cloudbound (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Filed PUF in error
I listed a file as a possibly unfree file in error. It really should be subject to a file for deletion, as there was a previous PUF discussion on the same photo. Is it too late to hat the discussion there and relist it here? I'm referring to ScottyBerg (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

misplaced file talk pages
Is there a process, or a report, which deals with File talk: pages held locally on Wikipedia even though the file is hosted on commons? For example, what should be done with File talk:NuclideMap stitched small preview.png? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only delete option would be WP:CSD, that seems to imply it might be best to stay - maybe copy to the commons talk page, then delete the en-WP page?  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug
There are 38 "images" in this cat. Do we think that the odds of recovery are now so poor that they should be tidied up and deleted?  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say no, the category contains links to page descriptions that have text and clues that can still be useful, even if only to explain to a reader linking in from outside why they see no image. 84user (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the category should be kept. Some of the images are still recoverable.  For example, a full version of File:LocationAbkhaziaFinal.png can be found on the gv Wikipedia here. -Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A few minutes with Google gave this: File:Humancannonball2.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of files "obsoleted" by svg versions
There have been FfD nominations (one a now-withdrawn mass nomination) of files from which svg derivative works have been created. Usually these files have been tagged with Template:Vector version available which says that the originals should be kept when attribution is required by the licence. Even for PD files, where attribution is not legally required, it may be necessary or desirable to avoid plagiarism, PLAGIARISM. Sometimes there is no backlink from the svg and sometimes the original creator is explicitly attributed. On other occasions the backlink is the only attribution. Is there a policy for such deletions? I think each has to be taken on its merits (unless all are kept or copied to Commons). When the svg is on Commons any deletions here should be harmonious with Commons policy. I !voted "delete"  and  but I am already thinking I should change to "comment"! Thincat (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

URAA affirmed by US Supreme Court - deletion request opened
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) is a 1996 US law that restored copyright to many foreign works that had fallen into the public domain in the US. In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.

For some time, Wikimedia Commons has been accepting images that are copyrighted in the US under the URAA, on the theory that it would be held unconstitutional. Such images were tagged with Not-PD-US-URAA. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. The English Wikipedia has also borrowed the template and the practice, but I have not yet opened a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia. Dcoetzee ( talk ) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we improve things here?
Seems that a lot of files are getting deleted. Are they from prior to when the uploading of images to WP was tightened up? If not does there need to be a tighter control of image uploading? I don't like editors having to waste valuable wikitime. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of local image description pages for Commons files

 * Previous discussion: WT:Files for deletion/Archive 5

I've recently had two complaints about AnomieBOT closing discussions as "Wrong Forum" when someone was wanting to nominate for deletion a locally-existing image description page for a Commons file. True, most of these could be deleted under WP:CSD, but it is within the realm of possibility that such a deletion could be contested.

I propose that we update WP:FFD to specifically recommend db-nofile as a first step, and if that is denied to list the page at WP:MFD instead of here since there is no actual file being deleted. I'd then update AnomieBOT to repeat this guidance when appropriate. Anomie⚔ 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not too bothered what the exact procedure should be&mdash;I can go with db-nofile and WP:MFD. However, suppose someone (wrongly but understandably) nominates an "empty" local file description page at WP:FFD or WP:PUF, the existing AnomieBOT message would not be too helpful (last sentence wrong even). "The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted." The message should either give WP:MFD as the alternative (with a reason) or the bot should distinguish the two cases. If it is feasible to distinguish (is it?), why not when appropriate place a helpful remark and simply refrain from closing? If this could be done, FFD and PUF could remain the approved venues. The admin/DRV route is fine for challenging any speedy. Thincat (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed the part where I said "I'd then update AnomieBOT to repeat this guidance when appropriate." Personally, I don't think a request for deletion of a page that is not a file is appropriate for WP:FFD, even if the page resides in the File namespace. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had missed that part. My apologies. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind using WP:MFD for file information pages. However, it should be clear what to do with cases like this, so that I (and other users) know where to post a request. I'm not convinced that WP:CSD is a good idea for fair use rationales, since the fair use rationale might contain relevant information. I don't see why a file on Commons should have a fair use rationale; unfree files should be deleted from there, and then the fair use rationale becomes orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. In the particular case that started this the image description was eventually speedied as F2 but this was technically incorrect. The description contained a fair use rationale and WP:CSD says "This also includes image description pages for Commons images, except pages containing categories or information not relevant to any other project". A FUR is not relevant to any other project so F2 did not apply. I happen to think in this particular case the FUR was not valid, however the matter was worthy of discussion. See also this discussion. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 29
There's something wrong with the listings page. "July 29" is appearing as the latest date -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was added directly to Files for deletion instead of to the appropriate subpage by in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFiles_for_deletion&diff=504827458&oldid=504684159 these edits]. Since the file is already deleted, I've just removed the mistaken listing. Anomie⚔ 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

renomination
How quickly can files kept by FFD be renominated? The same day it was kept, could it be renominated? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any hard rule, but renominating the same day would often be considered disruptive. Anomie⚔ 17:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This was renominated the same day it was kept. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unclosed XfD
is still open, but is no longer listed for some reason.  Spinning Spark  22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot watches for discussions to be reopened for a short period of time after the last one on a page closes, but then doesn't check again so it doesn't have to check hundreds of old pages that are never changing. This one was reopened just in time to miss the bot's last check. Perhaps I'll lengthen that time period somewhat.
 * In this case, I went ahead and closed the discussion. Anomie⚔ 10:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

TimedText namespace pages
Is deletion of pages in TimedText namespace handled at Files for deletion or Miscellany for deletion? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:Dane Blue - More Feeling.ogg.en.srt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, I'd say WP:CSD would apply. But in general, I'd lean towards MfD since these are not actually files but just an odd form of wikitext. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Making article page notification mandatory
After some recent FFD DRV issues, one aspect that came up was low participation in these. I believe part of this is based on the current advice where, while the file page and uploader notification are mandatory, the notification on article pages that use the image is optional. Given that we are likely dealing with images where the uploader has long and gone, this basically means these notices are falling on deaf ears.

Making the article talk page notification mandatory would at least avoid anyone later saying "but I never knew the image was up for deletion" if they were using it for their article. It would also encourage more participation at FFD which, I believe, many closers would appreciate. (Obviously, orphaned files would not need this). It might be more work on the nominator, but it would help in the long run. --M ASEM (t) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're spot on, Masem. We already notify AfDs at the article page; that followers of the article don't see the nomination for the included images is a mistake caused by a technical limitation. I wholeheartedly support this rule. The best way to get it working would be a Bot that created automatic notices at all articles where the image is used, so the regulars at FfD don't have any extra work to comply. Diego (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely should be done by a bot, or/and Twinkle. I absolutely refuse to do it manually. There can be no excuse for imposing yet more obligatory paperwork on nominators, in a matter that should be as easily automatized as this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely think we need a bot to do that, which shouldn't be too hard (just has to watch the current FFD page). --M ASEM (t) 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that notification on articles, rather than user talk pages, is more appropriate. And I think a bot to do it automatically would be wonderful, not least because the bot's messages would be neutrally worded.


 * At the same time, we would need to remind nominators that it is inappropriate to orphan an image and then nominate it for FFD, and closers who notice such things should default to keep rather than delete. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, orphaning an inappropriate image is absolutely not inappropriate in any way. Never has been, never will be. It is a simple application of WP:BOLD and will therefore always remain legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Orphaning an inappropriate image is fine. Nominating an image for deletion is fine. But orphaning it and *then* nominating it immediately for deletion is misleading, because it prejudges that the image was inappropriate, which is exactly what the FFD is supposed to determine. If an editor is nominating an image for deletion they should leave it alone so that the discussion can accurately consider the way the image is being used. If the consensus finds that the image is inappropriate, the image will be deleted, after all, so a short delay is fine. The same holds for categories and templates; it distorts the deletion process to orphan something just before it is nominated for deletion, and is not a legitimate application of "bold editing". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that it is bad form to orphan an image and put it to FFD where context can't be evaluated. Only if the image fails one of the CSDs for files (obvious copyvio, obvious free replacement) should the image be removed before further discussion, if that is needed. I do think that if a bot can review the articles that an image was used on in the past 24 hrs, then this would still catch those cases and notify editors on those articles, but this still wouldn't make the practice right. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose we are all primarily thinking of non-free images here, right? (Free images that are not orphaned are very rarely brought to FFD in the first place). If it's a non-free image, it shouldn't be necessary for an FFD voter to even look at the article at all – the FUR must tell them which articles it was used in, and the FUR ought to tell them enough to understand how it was used and for what purpose. If the FUR doesn't give you enough information to judge the appropriateness of an image, then the FUR is bad and the image ought to be deleted for that reason alone. Apart from that, everybody knows how to use the article history to find out what context an image was used in prior to orphaning, if the need should arise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A badly written NFUR is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason to fix the NFUR. A reason for deletion is that no sound FUR could be written - and that is something that has to be decided by discussion. Particularly if there was no NFUR at all, or a very bad one, if the image is orphaned it can be very hard to tell where it was used, and thus hard to tell whether a sound NFUR could be written. A good nomination would list the pages where the image was used, but if the nomination only says "No NFUR, replaceable" then it is very hard to see where the image might be applicable. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the FUR is totally absent or so deficient that it doesn't even name the articles it is for, then the image is unlikely to come up at FFD at all; it will usually be just tagged for the speedy queues. Those that do end up at FFD are typically those that have a formally "valid" FUR template and all. They are very often totally deficient content-wise, but they do tell you what article they are for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My real concern with orphaning is that I have seen it used as a way to avoid scrutiny. If we have a bot that starts placing notices on pages that use an image, allowing a nominator to orphan the image first allows the nominator to bypass that notification, which is counterproductive for getting full participation in the FFD. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Masem: Is there some way I do not know to tell where an image was previously used? As far as I know (and I have done a lot of programming with bots and the toolserver database) there is no record of pages that previously used an image, category, or template, only a list of pages that currently use it. If the image is a CSD, I agree that it is fine to orphan and delete it immediately, but in that case there is no reason to open a FFD. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there is, short of going through the edit histories of the articles in question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought there was, but I guess not. There technically should be a #10c-meeting rationale on the page, and if it uses one of the templates we can ID the article it was used it ; it would be more difficult for non-template rationales since we don't require linkage to the article of use. --M ASEM (t) 18:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sometimes detected those articles by going through the file history and noticing that some FURs have been deleted, which included the articles where the image was used. Diego (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no easy way for an automated tool to track the original articles that an orphaned image/file was used in, I wonder if we need to consider more logic and process here. We could make it an onus on the person that orphans an media file and puts it to FFD to make sure all talk pages of all affected articles are notified of this discussion (in cases where the files remain but tagged for FFD, a bot could do this). Otherwise, we restrict when files can be orphaned (never before they are taken to FFD, and in the case of a di- tag, only after 7 days after the tag).  If we make the act of "orphan then FFD" an improper process, then all we need to have more FFD input is to have a bot that notifies articles using the file of the issue - and this can be done for both FFD files and those tagged with di- problems. --M ASEM  (t) 04:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the bot is useful either way, since not all the images will be orphaned. The bot could also post a note on the FFD to say where the announcements were placed, or to say that the image is orphaned; that would help the people in the discussion have better context without having to look up where the image is used. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, people. Why are we talking about people first orphaning and then FFD'ing an image? Does anybody ever do that? Why would anybody ever do that? This seems quite academic to me. If you have orphaned an image, then you don't put it on FFD; you put it in the orfud queue. The only situation where I can think of a reason I would subsequently put something on FFD is if other editors had in the meantime insisted on putting the image back into the articles. On the other hand, the suggestion to prohibit orphaning outright is a total non-starter – making it significantly more difficult procedurally to remove a bad image than to add it would mean turning both WP:BOLD and WP:NFC upside down. To have a rule that effectively says you can never remove a non-free item without prior discussion would only be legitimate if there also was a corresponding rule that you can never add one without such discussion. Now, that might be a good rule to have indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You bet there's people doing exactly that. Images with perfect Purpose rationales will have them deleted with comments like "fails NFCC#8" or "can be explained with words", removed from the articles where they're used, and then tagged as orphan. That's why requiring a discussion at least for the cases where the status of the image is changed for worse is mandatory. This shouldn't affect images that have never had valid rationales or that have not been used in articles; only when one single editor is judging the image all by himself. Diego (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You evidently didn't understand what I was saying. Of course people can orphan images and then tag them as being orphaned; that's what the orphan tag is for. This has always been legitimate, and always will be. What I'm asking is: why would anybody first orphan an image and then take it to FFD? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then, to answer your original question see here that yes, there's people placing orphaned images at FfD, so this is not an academic debate. At the very least it provides a centralized record of what has been deleted for this reason. It's a good practice to review it and find out which images had a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being nominated, and which ones are simply vanity photos not used in any article. Diego (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are a totally different kettle of fish. Almost all images that get taken to FFD for being orphaned are low-quality free files that have been sitting around unused for a long period. People find these unused and nominate them for being not useful. It would be very unusual for somebody to find such a free file in use in an article, orphan it themselves and then nominate it at FFD. But we here were talking about non-free files, were we not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the RfC template to encourage more participation. David 1217  What I've done 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Fut.Perf: "Why are we talking about people first orphaning and then FFD'ing an image? Does anybody ever do that?" Indeed; and the last person who did that and was spotted ended up desysopped, at ArbCom and with several discretionary sanctions. Thats why it is discouraged to orphan an image and then bring it to FFD.
 * @Masem This is a very good idea, but we need to establish which articles would the message be left on. My bet is to make the bot leave it in the talk of articles into which the image is currently placed, and report back in the case it is orphaned.
 * — ΛΧΣ  21  02:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "...the last person who did that..."? Refs or it didn't happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a recent event, I guess that everyone new about it (the ArbCom case was just opened), but here's the ref: —  ΛΧΣ  21  22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And where are the diffs showing SchuminWeb first orphaning and then FFD'ing non-free images? (not to mention: where are the diffs showing that Arbcom considered those actions wrong, if indeed he did so?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh. The diffs date back to 2007 until 2011. I am too lazy to find them but if I remember well, some threat at ANI must have them. And well, ArbCom accepting the case and passing a motion is enough grounds for it; although the issue there went beyond, because he not only orphaned them and then took them to FFD, but sometimes even deleted them himself. But that's kind of irrelevant. What we should know is that orphaning then taking to FFD is disruptive and should not be done. I am against excessive use of non-free images because they represent a danger to the site (and the foundation), but if somebody orphans an image right before it's taken to FFD, then some context will be lost when assessing the information. — ΛΧΣ  21  00:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I browsed not only through the Arbcom page but also to the preceding RfC/U. I do not find any reference there to any claims that somebody first orphaned an image and then immediately took it to FFD. Diffs or it didn't happen. I very much doubt it did. This thread is pointless as long as people keep muddying the waters with confused claims about what the issue is and mixing up one process with another all the time. You are now the second person to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If we consider the process of first removing an image from a page and then nominating immediately at FFD is "out of process" and improper behavior, then we easily can get a bot to be made that tags FFDs that are non-orphans to drop messages on all talk pages for articles it is presently being used in, making this "mandatory" aspect trivial to do. (Note that I can see cases of where Editor A removes the image, Editor B readds, and then Editor A takes it to FFD to get more input - that's ok. It's if Editor A removes the image, and then there's no intermediate edits that restore the image, before Editor A FFD's it.) --M ASEM  (t) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing to keep in mind: partial orphaning immediately prior to FFD will always remain legitimate in cases where a non-free image is used on multiple pages and some of these uses are blatantly and incontrovertibly wrong, especially where some of them lack a FUR. In such cases, I do indeed remove the image from those obviously wrong pages and then use FFD for the remaining ones where there is at least a formally valid attempt at a justification. I do not accept mandatory notification for those obvious cases, be it automated or manual – if the persons who put the images in couldn't even bother to write a rationale, why should I bother notifying them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the case I am a bit worried about, not saying the approach is wrong. Clearly images failing #10c need to be resolved. We are trying to recreate a bot to do that as well, and like this, that notification should fall on the pages using the image w/o an obvious rationale; and then of course automatic removal from such pages after sufficient time should happen.  So this is fine.  But I can't think of any other claimed "automatic" removals at the present time (short of #9 problems of non-main space usage) that this would matter. (Eg, if an article is a discography and using lots of image covers, that's not an automatic removal allowance even though that it outlined as a problem - it's better to handle that by greasing the wheels than fighting it.)  So as long as thats the only route that you're removing the images, that would be fine. But I would like to get this #10c bot set up as well in addition to this one to help. --M ASEM  (t) 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion related to the "orphaning before FFD" thread above has just started at WP:VPR. Anomie⚔ 13:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment from an uninvolved user: After reding the proposal & discussion, I think this is a very good idea. "...to make the bot leave it in the talk of articles into which the image is currently placed" > favorite solution. Jesus Presley (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where images nominated at FFD are currently used in an article, then I absolutely support making it mandatory to inform editors of those articles by way of a message on the talk page and/or tagging of the image caption. I have no issues with a bot doing this, but I do not consider it an undue burden to require it to be done manually (I'm pretty certain that there are various way this could be set up to require just a single button press). If it is possible, then I equally support linking to the discussion from the talk pages of articles that formerly used images - I can't conceive of any harm this could do. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with the last point is that there is no way - unless clues are left on the image file - of where the image was formerly used before without a broad search of every article's history - its effectively impossible for an average user and even for bots. This is why we have to understand the mechanisms of removing an image so that we can identify that there are reasons to remove an image without having to FFD it (either objectively failing NFCC, or as a first BOLD edit in the BRD chain).  And we can only make it as "mandatory" as any other notification requirements - which (to my surprise) aren't mandatory (you only have to tag the article or file, not anyone else).  --M ASEM  (t) 22:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment ISTR seeing instances where a bot added a note to a caption in the relevant article, but I can't find it now. The notice was much less prominent than the AfD header, but it did something. Am I imagining things/dreaming? -- Trevj (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this used to happen, but now a file that is at FFD has a notification automatically transcluded about the discussion - which means nothing to the user just watching the article itself since this doesn't ping the watchlist. --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it Deletable image-caption? If a bot could do that, then it could place a more prominent header at the top of the mainspace page instead. -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks as if these bot approvals may be relevant:
 * Sambot 12
 * Chris G Bot (6th request)
 * SoxBot 19
 * -- Trevj (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I do, and used to do more, image tagging for various copyright issues I recall one of the scripts, which was triggered by Twinkle, or maybe it was Twinkle itself, automatically adding the Deletable image-caption tag to images in articles but it broke at some time a few years ago and has not been fixed or maybe could not be fixed at that time. I don't recall the details but seem to remember at that time it broke the actual image caption leaving neither the caption nor the notice being displaying. Maybe someone knows a better way now. It was and still is a great idea to tag the deletable images in the articles as that notifies the article watchers who may still have it listed. There will almost certainly be more that the on uploader who may be long gone so tagging them is often totally ineffective. Some article watcher may still respond or try to do something about it. ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For a bot to add stuff to image captions in articles is essentially impossible, because so many images are used in infoboxes and similar templates, and there are just so many different ways images and their captions are encoded in those. Some boxes have a simple " |image=... " syntax, some have captions automatically inserted by the template, some have separate " |caption=... " parameters; the parameter names are in no way standardized; so it's basically impossible for a bot to figure out where to add such a note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A few rules would seem simple enough to me: If the image has a caption in the " |caption=... " format, then append the template to that caption; if it is not inside a template and doesn't have a caption then create a caption in this format with the template. If the image is used with an "image=", "imagen=" or "image n" and is followed by a "caption=", "captionn=" or "caption n=" then append the template to the end of the caption parameter or create the caption in the right format if this is known. If neither of these are possible, then post the message to the talk page. Other common formats can of course be added when known. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that there is no reliable standard that "caption=" parameters will actually be called "caption=", nor that "image" parameters will be called "image=" (they might be "img=", "map=", "cover=" or any other arbitrary string), nor that the naming of a "caption" parameter will match that of the corresponding "image" parameter in any predictable way. Think of a monster like Infobox settlement, which has up to six different slots where images can be placed. The image parameters are called "image_skyline=", "image_flag=", "image_seal=", "image_shield=", "image_map=" and "pushpin_map=". Now try writing a script that automatically figures out that the corresponding caption parameters are "image_caption=", "map_caption=" and "pushpin_map_caption=" and that the remaining three slots don't have any caption parameters at all. Plus think of the fact that in many instances, even if you find the right syntax for the caption, adding any notice to it will horribly break the layout of the box. It's just not worth the trouble – much better to go to the talkpage straight away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is a really good argument for requiring human editors to add image captions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's an argument for using the talkpage instead. As a human editor, too, I'm not going to learn the documentations of a few dozen infobox templates by heart before I start nominating images for deletion. But in any case, as I said earlier, I will emphatically refuse to do any manual extra work on notifications, no matter where and how. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will repeat that I consider that refusal an entirely unreasonable attitude contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Shrug. Tell that to the people who fill Wikipedia with crappy uploads. I do a lot of work cleaning up image uploads, and frankly, eighty percent of the work I have to do in this area is caused by people who are either lazy, illiterate, irresponsible, or downright malicious. It's bad enough there is as much work to do about bad uploads as there is; any additional mouseclick to do is one too many. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notifying Wikiprojects
Given that FFD discussions generally don't seem to attract huge numbers of participants, and deletion of images used in articles can be controversial I think that notifying relevant WikiProjects would be a good idea. Before anyone starts complaining about increased effort, I don't propose to make it mandatory just suggest it as something nominators should consider. The current wording concludes with:
 * If the image is in use, also consider adding to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

I propose adding the following sentence after that:
 * Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

The thinking behind this is that it puts the suggestion in the minds of people who haven't thought of it. Certainly when I nominate something I find it frustrating if it doesn't get much attention, and I doubt I'm the only one like this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

After no objections in two weeks I've now made the proposed addition. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The real issue here with lack of attention is that FFD is 95% "crap to delete" and 5% meaningful discussions. If we were to split out "unused images" from all other nominations, then it may get more eyes on the meaningful discussions. --B (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Image removal tracker
There has been much comment above about tracking images that were removed from articles. I have had an idea for how a bot might be able to collate such a list going forwards (but not historically). I have asked about the feasibility of the idea at WP:BOTREQ, which any bot programmers here are specifically invited to comment on. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this only track non-free images that exist on Wikipedia, not images that come from Commons, or free images on Wikipedia? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the point about images that come from Commons (I'm not sure whether or not I agree with it or not, I need to do more thinking) but orphan free images are nominated for deletion often too, so I don't really see the value in not tracking them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Free images that can be moved to commons should be moved, whether they are used or not, so that solves most of those issues. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Over at Bot requests, CBM indicates that it would be possible to (if I've understood it correctly) track changes to the list of pages that include media in the category "all non-free media". This obviously would obviously only track non-free media, addressing the anon's comments above. So does anyone think this is an idea worth progressing? Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I could see at least a start in daily non-free media change tracking, even if this is just plain text dumps put into a set of searchable pages (eg allowing one to search by a specific filename). There may be more but would have to nail down other ideas to flesh that out better. --M ASEM  (t) 14:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Once more: why is it such a big issue to track non-free media removals? Why aren't we talking about ways of effectively tracking non-free media additions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is not possible to see which pages an image used to be used on, and this is a significant aspect of many deletion discussions regarding non-free images. Additions of non-free images could also be tracked, but the output of that tracking would be useful for a different purpose than the tracking of removals and so it hasn't been suggested as part of the same discussions. Tracking additions and removals are not mutually exclusive and should not be implied to be so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion apart from licensing
So is FFD all about deleting files based on licensing, FUR, copyright, and the like? Or are other reasons valid? "Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project" is pretty vague. What would we do with, say, an image released by company that promotes itself without imparting real information (cf.)? Or put more broadly, does a file have to meet a reason spelled out here in order to qualify for deletion? Is this the appropriate venue for deleting free images? --BDD (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can articulate a good reason for an image to be deleted that isn't listed as being handled elsewhere, this is probably the place for it. It just so happens that most of the reasons people come up with are either licensing-related or "unencyclopedic". Anomie⚔ 03:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll give it a try. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images of a specific television episode
There are over 100 non-free images depicting specific episodes of TV series that are currently backlogged and awaiting an admin's decision at Files for deletion/2013 May 23. Recently, about a dozen similar nominations were closed as "delete" at. In each case, some editors claim that the use of a single image significantly increases understanding of the article, while others disagree. Several editors requested a hold on these deletions pending wider discussion. I'd like to have that discussion.

We all know that WP:NFCC says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." And we know that this can be quite subjective. A few editors would interpret this to mean that album covers and book covers should not be hosted on Wikipedia, since (according to this line of thinking) you can fully understand an article about an album or a book without seeing its cover. At the other extreme, in any NFCC#8 discussion you can always find someone who will claim any give image significantly increases their understanding of the topic. Community consensus generally finds a useful middle ground.

There are many Featured Articles on television episodes that show a single non-free image in the main infobox to depict the content of the show in question. Examples include Doomsday (Doctor Who), Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural), Cartman Gets an Anal Probe (South Park), The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson (The Simpsons), Deep Throat (The X-Files episode), and many others. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument to make in deletion discussions, but Featured Articles are not mere "other stuff"; they are "the best Wikipedia has to offer", judged through an exhausting process to remove any flaws before they are promoted. This certainly adds weight to the argument that the omission of such images would be detrimental to a full understanding of the episode. But it is not definitive. On the other hand, recent deletions could indicate a growing consensus that such use is invalid.

It seems to me that there are three ways we can go on this. (1) We can state as a general guideline that we usually assume a single non-free screenshot of a television episode is legitimate in an article on that episode, assuming the content of the image is discussed in the article itself, in the same way that we assume that a single non-free portrait is usually acceptable in a biography of a deceased person when no free images exist, or that we assume that a book cover or album cover is acceptable in an article on a book or album. (2) We can state as a general guideline that non-free images of individual episodes are very rarely acceptable, since repeating characters can be shown in other articles, and any action specific to that episode can nearly always be fully explained in text. (3) We can decline to offer any such simple guideline, and instead we would say that many such images pass NFCC#8 and many others do not. The only way to know is to watch the entire episode, look at the image in question, and decide if that individual image significantly increases the understanding of that particular episode.

So what do we want to do?

Option 1: Keep in most cases

 * We should generally assume that for most articles on TV episodes, a single non-free screenshot will legitimately increase the readers understanding of the topic, so long as the content of the article is trenchant to the text of the article.


 * Support, I think this would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, There is very little likelihood that free equivalents will emerge in this half-century, and a screenshot provides information and context that cannot be replaced by verbiage. --agr (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, absolutely no way; this would be blatantly in breach of the principles of NFCC#8. You cannot just decide by fiat that all such images are going to be contextually significant. Most of them simply aren't, and claiming that they are would be little more than a lie, no matter how many "support" votes such a claim might get here. (Incidentally, the wording of the proposal makes no sense: "so long as the content of the article is trenchant to the text of the article". Really?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support In general if given a whole episode to find a screencap from, there is going to be at least one scene where a particularly relevant image can be produced. I trust the editors to find at least one good one and think they should sort of have a free pass of not having to go through a FFD for at least one main image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A screenshot can and does provide additional commentary to articles on TV episodes.  They qualify as fair use.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I oppose always assuming a "delete" outcome. Diego (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This just isn't a reasonable option for non free content of any kind.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike cover art which is chosen by the publisher/creator for the branding and marketing of the work (outline at WP:NFCI, the only equivalent for TV shows are title cards, and these have gone by the wayside in most cases. While it can be argued some screenshots can uniquely identify episodes (and certainly true is many cases) that is not universal, particularly for things like live-action sitcoms or dramas. It is also arguable that what is considered an iconic scene evoke original research from the editors due to personal preference or the like. Thus, it is not universal that a screenshot acts as a identifying image, and thus we can't have simple wholesale allowance for them. --M ASEM (t) 13:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A TV episode article unlike a short summary generally gives away the whole plot, ie names the murderer in detective story, and if copyright holders cannot object to text, then how can an image, ideally illustrating a relevant plot point, be objected to. If they do then remove the image.REVUpminster (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries and screenshots of images are considered fair use, so that's not the issue. But at Wikipedia (and all Foundation sites), we have a free content mission that is meant to minimize non-free use, which includes screenshots. That's the issue to be addressed. --M ASEM (t) 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Minimize doesn't mean eliminate. In a situation where there is no possibility of an equivalent free image, we only hurt our readers by deleting screenshots.--agr (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of non-free policy, "no image" or "text description" (both free) are considered as potential for equivalent replacement of non-free images. --M ASEM  (t) 19:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are no free passes to bypass WP:NFCC.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support If we have an article about a TV episode then such a picture just forms a part of the article. Any issue of infringement would address the entirety of the article not just the picture.  Other aspects of the article such as the plot synopsis or quotations seem more likely to be infringing in that they reproduce a more substantial part of the work than a still image.  The guideline that still images should be significant in increasing the understanding of the reader is nonsensical because, the more significant the image, the more likely it is to be infringing.  And if it is illustrating corresponding text, then that will be infringing too.  Concentration upon the image alone is therefore absurd.  If we have an article at all, then a still image seems an appropriate part.  If copyright owners have a problem with episode coverage then they know where to find us and can readily challenge such articles per the provisions of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.  I am not aware of any case where this has been done and so the presumption that there is a problem here seems fanciful.  The real issue for copyright holders is that bit-torrent sites and the like are able to reproduce the entirety of such episodes.  Our article summaries and still images seem de minimus in this context. Warden (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is quite beside the point. The concerns about screenshots have nothing to do with the legal legitimacy of fair use. What we are talking about is the minimality requirement of non-free use in the sense of Wikipedia's non-free content policy and about the stringency of WP:NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We'd not be blinking if our requirement was to stay within US fair use law. The issue is raised due to the stricter bar of the Foundation's goal of minimizing non-free content. --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Option 2: Delete in most cases

 * We should generally assume that a non-free screenshot will usually fail NFCC#8 in an article about the episode.


 * Support, I think this would also be fine. If this option is preferred, we should remove non-free images from nearly all of our articles on TV episodes, including the Featured Articles. – Quadell (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support In many cases, the screenshot is simply an image of one or two of the characters in the episode, and that is essentially a violation of WP:NFC §6. Also, this option is the current guideline, as given in Infobox television episode. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Prefer option 4 Better to state when images are appropriate, rather than to give only such a broad steer.  Jheald (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanket statements that apply to a whole class of images with a "default" position are against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia policy is designed as to encourage individual case-by-case discussion, and guidelines are supposed to reflect existing community agreements on how to deal with a common situation. As of today there's no such agreement on how to deal with episode screenshots that can be written into a guideline. Diego (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Black or white is not at all how to handle non free-content issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outright deletion is not appropriate, but I will say that the default option should be that a TV episode can go without a screenshot. --M ASEM (t) 13:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outright deletion of just about everything violates the spirit of even allowing fair-use content at all on Wikipedia. Doing something of this nature is essentially saying that fair-use images are not desired at all and has a tendency on Wikipedia to creep into deletion of more and more content over time.  The only reason to support this optional policy is to grandfather fair-use images and to eliminate any new examples.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just as there are no free passes, there are no automatic fails for WP:NFCC.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Option 3: No guideline

 * No general guideline is useful or possible for this sort of case. Each will have to be examined on a case by case basis, taking into account the actual content of the episode and the content of the picture.


 * Oppose, it is my opinion this is bad for Wikipedia. Simple guidelines are very useful, and could help us tremendously in such cases. We don't usually have to go on a case-by-case basis for book covers or album covers, and that keeps things simple and keeps FFD less cluttered and less backlogged. Either option 1 or 2 would likewise simplify things for us all. Besides, if the applicability of NFCC#8 to an article can only be determined by watching the actual episode, relatively few people will be qualified to offer opinions on deletion discussions for this sort of image, while those nominations stay backlogged, resolved at the whim of the closing admin. – Quadell (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would be nice to have a guideline, sure, but any possible guideline will hardly be able to say more than that there is no general guideline. Except for the principle that we already have in practice, as manifested in hundreds and hundreds of previous deletion cases: on a case-by-case basis, an image must be shown to fulfil a concrete function in illustrating some specific, substantial and sourced issue that is discussed in the article text, in such a way that the textual passage would not be adequately understood without it. But that is little more than a restatement of what is in NFCC#8 anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is the consensus of the general community that we accept non free content when possible, within the content guidelines set forth by editors (and with a full rationale that must be included for images). It is accepted by the foundation, who actively encourage Wikipedia communities to set their own Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Perhaps we need an actual policy page and that the discussion should really be if we want to mark our current non free content guidelines as policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In part that guideance here is needed (as there are certainly acceptable uses of television screenshots as infobox identification images), and in part we already have it between NFCC and NFC. The question is if clarity is needed. --M ASEM (t) 13:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with much of the above, what is needed is some guidance. Case by case examination seems to be code words for pure arbitrary decision making that has no reason or substance other than what a random number generator came up with that day and is certainly not guidance.  It also makes it confusing to editors on how that might apply to any given article.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Option 4: Keep if the image can be said to do more than just identify the episode

 * My understanding is that this is the current status quo, and the basis upon which screenshots have been upheld at WP:FAC.
 * The current guidance at eg Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Manual_of_style expounds this in more detail, including the bullet point that:
 * Non-free screenshots should not solely rely on a plot point to justify their use, e.g. "This image portrays an important plot point". While the image may rely on the plot to justify its use, it must also rely on other sections of the article; for example, a key part of the production of the episode, or an aspect of the episode which is notable among television critics.
 * Other parts of the guidance there may also be useful. Jheald (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CREEP. The relevance of an image to its article under WP:NFCC#8 is to be decided on a case-by-case basis as it's a subjective decision; no amount of new guidelines will nor should change that. But there are situations that can be written to guide decisions without mandating a definitive outcome. Many images in the backlog will have other problems; the most common case seems to be that they just show the same characters again and again. In such cases they fail WP:NFCC as being redundant with other images of the same characters, so there's no need to discuss their #8 validity. But for cases like Lisa the Skeptic where the image illustrates the visual appearance of a major plot point, or chapters introducing new characters as discussed in the article, there's a reasonable claim that the image is contextually significant and they should not be deleted under a blanket mass review. Diego (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A local consensus of the WikiProjects cannot override the wider consensus of the general community. I have my doubts to the wording and interpretations the guideline as to whether they are being stricter or adhering to the actual content guide. No, why re-word the guideline to say what you think is the status quo. That doesn't even assume that the status quo is even interpreting our guideline correctly to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Arguably we have language that already prevents wholesale use of screenshots in this fashion, but I can see adding a footnote to existing WP:NFCI ( "Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." ) to explain that there's no allowance for episode screenshots as identifying images but if the screenshot meets NFCC#8 (in that what is shown is the subject of significant discussion of the episode) then they can be used that way. That, or adding to NFC#UUI (unallowable uses) that "A screenshot of a televison episode used as the episode's infobox image, unless that screenshot describes a scene or other facet of the episode that is the subject of critical commentary and discussion within the article." --M ASEM (t) 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this needs to go into the central NFC page, but a piece of guidance on the relevant wikiproject guidelines would certainly be useful. I just noticed that Television episodes has no such guidance, although Manual of Style/Television has a bit (well, guess who put it in...) Incidentally, I think your wording ("unless that screenshot describes a scene or other facet of the episode that is the subject of critical commentary") is not yet restrictive enough: it is not sufficient that the scene should be the object of commentary; what is required is that it must be the object of commentary in a way that could be significantly less well understood without the visual presence of the image. So, for instance, imagine an episode of a procedural drama with a scene where characters A and B have a difficult problem to solve, and the article talks about how much suspense there is in that scene; however, visually the two characters are simply seen sitting behind their desks and talking in much the same way as they do in every other episode of the series. In this case an image would not be appropriate because it would not provide any particular help in understanding what is special about the scene. Your wording would imply that it's okay to include it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would at least give some leeway if there's more than just talking heads in the photo that editors have gone out of their way to support sourced discussion about (eg something like at The Stolen Earth). But if all it is talking heads, yea, it would probably fail NFCC#8. I note that the NFCI clause is preceded by the general facet that all NFCC has to be met, I'd expect the same here so more wording would be needed. --M ASEM (t) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: In practical terms (for an admin closing a deletion nomination), how is this different than option #3, above? – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A admin should double check the article in question where the image is used to make sure the claims that the image isn't the subject of discussion, in addition to what input the FFD gives. --M ASEM (t) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another way to put this is that is if there is at least some reasonable, sourced discussion of an image, it is likely better to keep if consensus is otherwise split per DEADLINE and evaluate it later at processes like GA and FA where images are highly scrutinized. I will point out that this is not the case for many of the Star Trek images in question, where a random screenshot is used. --M ASEM (t) 15:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the direction this is going in terms of clarifying what kinds of screenshots ought to be used. It could be in this case a discussion of a critical screenshot would also be a representative screen shot from a key scene that is talked about in reliable sources, but I agree it should be something above and beyond merely a random screenshot from the episode itself.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, this would also be an acceptable solution, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This offers another way to define what is desired in terms of raising the standards for non-free images but doesn't eliminate them... and this gives some guidance in terms of what is looked for. It strikes a pretty reasonable balance.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That Dr. Who project guideline is pretty questionable. What it should do is elaborate the ten points of WP:NFCC in relationship to TV screenshots.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given how well the DW project tries to keep image use down, I think that it implicitly read that their advice assumes that all other 9 points of NFCC is met, and merely a way of defining cases when NFCC#8 is clearly met. Clearly, no project guideline can supersede the NFCC but only offer advice as to how it applies. --M ASEM (t)
 * Even viewed in that light, it doesn't focus on how the understanding of the mentioned sections would have to be negatively impacted by the lack of the image.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
See also previous discussions, for example Village pump (policy)/Archive 106 Have WT:NFC and the relevant wikiprojects been notified of this? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. No wikiprojects have been notified. Which ones would be most relevant? – Quadell (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I have left notifications at Village pump (policy), Non-free content review, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. If there are other places you think notices should be left, please let me know. – Quadell (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All this discussion seems to be about screenshots, but I am wondering what is the position in regard to wallpaper freely distributed by copyright holders for computer users to display many of which are now only available through archives such as wayback machine.REVUpminster (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean wallpapers specifically of TV episode content? If not, I'd recommend you open a separate thread, because your issue would seem to be barely related to what we are discussing here. In any case, I doubt wallpaper images, even if legitimately released for promotional purposes by the copyright holders and not just bootleg, will usually be released under a fully free license. As long as they aren't, they get evaluated under NFCC#8 etc exactly like any other non-free image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Do nothing
Our non-free content policy is not a single criteria. It is a list of guidelines that also link to other guidelines.

The issue of whether or not a single screenshot from an episode (meaning, each and every episode) should be used cannot be argued against with NFCC#8 as a reasoning for general use of non free screen shots in all episode articles. It is an individual argument against misuse of images with little to no context, not all use. The meaning of the criteria is to allow use if the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Many people who argue against use are forgetting that this is a visual art. Words alone cannot replace the screenshot and a free version is not possible (of a screenshot). Our guideline:Non-free content is the complete non-free content guideline (Non-free content rationale guidelines are separate). That guideline establishes that screenshots are acceptable use in the section "Acceptable use" (see how that works). WP:NFCI states:

"5. Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question."

So, leave the backlog or have a drive to clear it but don't change our guidelines because some editors feel that NFCC#8 is an excuse, It isn't. That is why we have actual guidelines and not just the criteria.

Does this mean that any screenshot from the episode is acceptable? No. Only if what is being depicted is discussed within the body of the article. Also, there will be individual reasons why a non-free screen shot does not pass other criteria such as NFCC#1, if there is a free image of the filming of the episode. Not uncommon these days.

If it ain't broke...don't fix it, please.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This statement is very true. We're basically looking at a situation where most of the issues with images stem from when we didn't have as strict requirements for image inclusion and TV episodes were created with screenshots, and now those images still linger. We have no DEADLINE to get rid of them as long as they meet the fundamental aspects of NFCC (eg NFCC#10c, etc) and better to allow time and discussion to determine which stays and goes. I've suggested before that the TV project - which has been open to removal of such images after review - does need to work at pruning images from older articles, and it is likely better to have small coordinated efforts to do so before trying to evoke xFD discussions. --M ASEM  (t) 13:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Doing nothing means that screenshots like [[File:Worf Alexander Deanna after showdown.jpg]] (deleted; viewable off-wiki here) will continue to be deleted. It was previously used in A Fistful of Datas. I'm hoping that some sort of rough consensus will determine whether this sort of deletion should continue or not. – Quadell (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of that episode article, there's no justification for the image use (no commentary on the image or scene or costumes or the like outside of the plot description), and thus deletion was right. I wouldn't consider this an edge case here. --M ASEM (t) 15:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Given the distinctive costumes and setting, it seems to me that the article could have been improved in such a way to make NFCC#8 met without too much effort, had anyone been inspired to do so. Since no one did, we can only work with what we have. (This comment assumes that a screenshot can ever pass NFCC#8 in an article on a TV episode, and looking at the discussion above, this seems to be the case.) – Quadell (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I don't think the question is whether we allow screenshots in TV episode articles - they are certainly allowed. Just what conditions are required if any for their inclusion within the NFCC framework. --M ASEM (t) 19:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Premature close/delete?
I am concerned that large numbers of these FfD's are being closed (and the images are being deleted) without a clear consensus. See, for example, File:ST-TNG Firstborn.jpg (at Files for deletion/2013 May 23): this discussion was closed as "delete" even though all of the comments favoured keeping the image. Many others on this same page have been deleted even though only one or two comments favoured deletion. In the absence of a general agreement that the (mostly repetitive) arguments for deletion are all spot-on and the (also mostly repetitive) arguments for retention are all completely out to lunch — and given the still-ongoing discussion here with no clear consensus at this time — I believe these deletions may be premature. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have another SchuminWeb case here? Hmmm. — ΛΧΣ  21  16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I don't completely agree, Future's explanation below is satisfying enough. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In cases of nominations that are part of a long-running tradition of similar cases, closures need to be made not just based on the vagaries of which voters happen to turn up in each case, but also in light of the long-established principles and standards of how such cases are decided. In this case group, there is indeed such a stable, long-standing consensus, about what counts as a valid argument for this type of situation. In light of this established practice, I discounted those keep votes that were merely procedural ("don't make group nominations"), and those that merely made a blanket non-specific assertion of F8 significance. Long-standing policy consensus has established that there is only one type of argument that can lead to a valid keep result here: somebody needs to explain in specific, concrete terms what aspect the article's content an image serves to illustrate and how the article could be less adequately understood without it. Such an argument has to be stated either in the XfD discussion or in the FUR on the image page. In the absence of such an explicit, individualized keep argument, deletion is the only valid outcome. None of the images in question here had a valid FUR in this sense, and as far as I remember none of them had substantial individual keep arguments in the FFDs. In this situations, there were indeed not just deletable by the FFD rules, but also subject to speedy deletion for lack of valid rationales.

Moreover, in the large majority of these cases, the articles themselves consisted entirely or almost entirely of plot renarration. It is also a long-standing principle in these discussions that an article that lacks well-sourced analytical commentary cannot possibly support a valid case of non-free image use, because such use depends on the presence of critical commentary.

During all this process (since May!) I have not seen that any of the editors involved were going to the articles in question and improving them in order to create a better basis for using an image. In not a single case have I seen that any of the FURs was improved while an image was up for discussion. All the images I deleted recently still had entirely boilerplated non-specific pseudo-FURs that were prima facie invalid.

If any of you wish to salvage any specific image(s) among those I deleted in this batch, please let me know and I'll re-open that discussion; however, I'll expect that a valid individual, specific and concrete keep argument will then be brought forward, that a correct and individualized FUR will be written, and that it will be demonstrated that the article in question is of sufficient quality to support an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

TV episode images: precedents
Both the current RfC on this page and the above complaint are based on the mistaken assumption that there is a lack of a clear consensus about how such cases ought to be handled. This assumption is false. The existing consensus is manifested in literally hundreds of precedents of previous FFDs, all of which were handled according to a very consistent, stable interpretation of our existing NFCC policy.

In the period between January 2009 and May 2012, i.e. prior to the recent large batches of mass nominations (in May 2012, November 2012 and again in May 2013), there were 174 separate FFD cases regarding TV episode images, i.e. on average about one every week. Of these, only 11 were closed as keep and an additional 7 as "no consensus". The "delete" closures were handled by 18 different admins (40 by Peripitus, 37 by Fastily, 29 by Schuminweb, 21 by Explicit, 5 by Drilnoth, 4 by myself, and 3 or fewer each by Angusmclellan, B, Courcelles, Danger, King of Hearts, Nv8200p, Quadell, Stifle, Skier Dude and Wknight94.)

(There were a total of about 800 additional FFDs in the course of the second half of 2012, mostly as part of large batches. They too resulted in deletions in the large majority of cases.)

During the period prior to May 2012, each of the major FFD-handling admins repeatedly made "delete" closures despite a lack of a clear majority or even in the face of a numeric majority to the contrary. In all cases of "keep" closures, the decisions were based on an argument demonstrating an individual function of an image in supporting critical discussion in the text. No FFD was ever closed as "keep" based merely on arguments of the type we have seen made here by those who supported "", regarding a general blanket allowance, legitimacy of a generic "identifying" use or a general assumption of F8 being met as a matter of routine. To be sure, such arguments were quite often raised in the FFDs, but they were always, invariably, overruled. There has been an unwavering consensus in all these closures that there must be an individual, specific justification on a case-by-case basis, that it must involve the image supporting sourced critical commentary in the text, and that a very large proportion of the existing images in older articles are bad and need to be cleaned up.

This is the existing policy consensus. There is no basis for trying to overturn it here.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The collapsed list of precedents is not completely correct. See: [[File:A New Day in the Old Town.jpg]] listed as "kept"....not there, and [[File:11th Doctor.jpg]] which is listed twice as "kept", but it is not there for examples. That is not all but I didn't have time to go-through the entire list.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there may be some errors still. The data was derived from a combination of API queries, trying to match deletion log entries with FFD entries. I didn't manage to manually check every entry yet (it was a much longer list, including the hundreds of batch nominations later in 2012). There were a few wrong matches, for instance when a technical deletion of earlier high-res versions happened at around the same time as an FFD nomination. The entry for File:11th Doctor.jpg seems correct, however – it was closed as keep twice, but the file was deleted independently as an orphaned speedy at a later date. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is way easier to see which are really "keep" on this list because they are red-linked.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions (from Quadell)
This RFC has been open for five days, and I'm ready to close it. Thank you so much, everyone, for the terrific response this has merited! Thanks especially to Stefan2's link to a related archived village pump discussion, and to Fut.Perf. for providing voluminous examples of previous decisions.

I opened this RFC because I sometimes close old FFD debates, but I didn't know what the consensus was regarding the 100+ (at the time) open debates on episode screenshots. I could not find any page or group of pages that made clear the consensus on how to treat these images. Through this RFC, thanks to everyone's input, I think the consensus is now clear.

There were equal amounts of support and opposition to the idea of assuming a single screenshot is valid in an episode article, much the way we do for book covers. Although there were valid arguments on both sides, the "oppose" comments were more often well-grounded in a knowledge of Wikipedia policy. There was virtually no support for the idea of assuming a screenshot is invalid, and even less support for the contention that no guideline should exist. It was option 4, contributed by Jheald, that garnered near-unanimous support.

When an admin (such as myself) wants to close a deletion discussion for a TV episode, when determining whether NFCC#8 is fulfilled, the following questions seem useful, based on the discussion above. Is the specific content of the screenshot actually discussed in the body of the article itself? Is that discussion relevant to the rest of the article body? Is the image content discussed in ways that address more than simple plot exposition, but that describe other aspects such as production content or analysis of visual content by critics? If so, then the image likely passes NFCC#8 in an article on the episode. But if the image content is not mentioned in the article body at all, or only in a very cursory way, then the image is unlikely to pass NFCC#8. This seems to be the standard recommended by the community as a whole, and it is the standard I will apply.

(On a personal note, I am pleased that this does not place an insurmountable burden on content creators. Nearly every television episode article could include a valid screenshot, but only if someone wants to do the work of researching which scenes portray notable production details, or which are mentioned by critics, etc., and if that editor is willing to contribute enough to the body of the article to justify the image use. In this way, non-free content can only be kept if enough new free content is created to show that NFCC#8 is met, which seems to me to be a neat way to fulfill Wikipedia's goal of supporting free content.)

When this RFC is archived, it can be a useful resource to point to when anyone has questions about how to handle this sort of situation. Thank you all for participating. – Quadell (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)