Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7

Request for closure
Ulster Defence Regiment is currently a GA nominee, and one of the article's images being debated at. Much has been said there, but debate seems to have trickled off. The uploader has requested closure so that the article can move forward. I can't close the FFD, since I left my own opinions there (and I wasn't at my most tactful, sadly). Does anyone want to make a determination, for the sake of the GA-nom? – Quadell (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"obsoleted by vector version"
A vast number of bitmap images have been listed for deletion (see Files for deletion/2013 August 3) on the grounds that they have been "obsoleted by vector version". These deletions are all (AFAICS) coming from User:Sfan00 IMG.

We should not delete these. I know of no policy reason to delete them, at Commons there is a very clear consensus to not delete them.
 * There is no reason to delete them. No reason is given, other than that another derivative image has been created from them.
 * Although WP may prefer SVG, this is no reason why other projects (and our content is licensed to be reusable for a reason) might not prefer bitmap.
 * The bitmap represents audit trail for the image and its licensing.
 * The SVG conversion may be inaccurate. For technical subjects this can (and at Commons frequently has) be an issue. Having the original around remains valuable.
 * The SVG conversion may be inappropriate. To some consumers, an image from an old book scan is a diagram of a subject (and so SVG is useful), but to other consumers it's as much a piece of period artwork that needs to stay as a bitmap.

We should not delete images for no other reason than "obsoleted by vector version". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was at the moment confining the deletions to 'unused' images, but I'll call a temporary halt, until this is discussed in more depth Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The other issue is that prior to the FFD's I had been tagging 'obsoletesd'image for Commons,

only for certain bots (like ContinuityBot) to rule they didn't meet Commons requirements. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot does not decide whether a file meets Commons requirements. If the bot adds a Commons template, then the file usually meets Commons requirements, and if the bot removes the tag, this usually means that the file doesn't meet Commons requirements (e.g. copyvio or out of scope). However, in all cases, it is necessary for a human to manually review whether the file is suitable for Commons before moving the file there. That a bot removes a tag is not in itself a reason for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy, I don't know of any "very clear consensus" on Commons to keep unused bitmap versions of files with used SVG versions. I may just not be aware of it. Could you point me to where such a clear consensus is shown? – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See Commons:Commons:Superseded_images_policy (redirects to a section in the deletion policy) and Commons:Commons talk:Superseded images policy. In short: Commons appears to have several reasons for keeping them. One of them is that old files may be needed for attribution source for derivative works of a superseded file. Another reason is that Commons is a media repository and that people outside Commons might be using them. Also, Commons shouldn't make content decisions for other projects if a different project might wish to use a superseded image, which may have been another reason for the Commons policy on this. For the same reason, CommonsDelinker won't replace one file with another if the file format differs. Many of these arguments appear to be irrelevant for Wikipedia, and superseded images on this project are often deleted as useless at WP:FFD. I'm not sure how User:Sfan00 IMG selected the files, though: some users were complaining that some of the files in fact weren't superseded. If a superseded file is needed for attribution issues, it is not a good idea to remove it, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that context, Stefan. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Request for a mass closure made. This needs some assistance :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's perfectly valid for us at en.wiki to delete unused and superseded bitmaps, so long as (1) the replacement SVG is accurate and appropriate, (2) the bitmap is not needed for a cc-by or GFDL audit trail, and (3) procedure at FFD is followed. On the other hand, it's also perfectly valid for anyone to copy these images to Commons so long as Commons wants them -- this often happens when such images are nominated at FFD, and the case is closed as "deleted as F8". My only strong request is that if you are going to move an "obsoleted" bitmap to Commons, please add categories to it there so that it's not just another potentially-useless and unfindable image. (Just use the same categories the SVG uses.) – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Headers delinked
May I suggest that the template used to add nominations to the list be stripped of the "link header" function? Just below the header, the file is linked, so is it necessary to also link it in the header? Some editors like myself prefer the "right-click to edit" rather than "edit links". When the linked section header is right-clicked, all one gets is the usual choice box that one gets when one right-clicks a link. To edit the page, one has to go back to the higher level "date" header and right-click it. Then one must hunt for the particular file one wants to edit. If the filename headers are stripped of their links, then this problem would be solved: A right-click of the unlinked version in a header will allow editors to edit the individual file entry instead of the entire contents under the higher "Date" header. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Anteh-vandalism kitteh lolcat.jpg → File:Anteh-vandalism kitteh lolcat.jpg
 * Ref.: Special:Preferences – General options

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

PS. Oh! and I won't edit the links out of the section headers; however, I would support that if others want it. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX !

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

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

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

File:Glass Jars.jpg

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

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

Recovering file
Can somone recover this file File:Machine Head Halo.jpg ? Thanks XXN (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Try WP:REFUND. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Question/suggestion
As I'm sure any regular editors/nominators/commenters at FFD will be aware, this page is massively backlogged. I'm starting to work through it, and luckily most nominations are uncontroversial orphaned junk deletion. However, I do now and then come across more controversial, contested nominations, but for which their discussions have not reached consensus, last being commented on in October. Whilst I could close them all as No consensus, I'm reluctant to do so as we're talking about a large number of potential copyright/policy violations here, as they tend to be NFCC disputes. Hence, would it be OK to allow the relisting of these nominations, adding the relist nomination and placing them on 'Todays' log? This would also bring us in-line with other deletion venues such as AFD and CFD which use a similar procedure. What do other FFD regulars think - I'm pinging the most prolific nominators I've seen, sorry if I missed you:, ,. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If a nomination needs more discussion, then I think that relisting on a more current date is better than closing. Also close the section on the old page as "relisted" (or relisted) as this makes it easier for people to find the discussion. Also avoid relisting too many discussions on the same date as this slows down page saving when commenting. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a sensible idea. It actually used to be a fairly common practice a few years ago, from what I recall. Kelly  hi! 20:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
I was wondering if the following could be modified.

old text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.

new text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or there is at least one vote of support and no objections to deletion have been raised.

reason: The present text says that a file can be deleted if no one objects to it, even if no one voices support for the deletion.

note: I made this request after seeing. If this change is accepted, is it recommended that it occurs after December 18th. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Sorry, and while I can totally see why you think this is worth doing, for FFD this isn't really appropriate. This forum handles thousands of mainly uncontroversial deletion requests (e.g. 'orphaned and unencyclopedic'), where unused files are deleted at no harm to anyone. We've already got a massive backlog as it is, so placing this extra requirement on the closing admins before being able to delete the image would just be burdensome I'm afraid, and increase the workload at no real benefit to the wiki. Sorry. :( Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh, it is ok. Making a backlog worse isn't a good thing.  In any case, it does seem that things did get resolved in the end.  Still, thanks for making a reply to this, even if it is a bit old.  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC at WP:PUF
There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header revolving around the use of pufc in the WP:PUF process. As the header talk page most likely has very few watchers, I am dropping a note here to get relevant discussion from the file namespace community. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 14:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominating several
Hello. Sorry if this is covered somewhere, but is there a procedure for nominating several files by the same uploader, or does it have to be done one by one?  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  18:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for some hard policy, but the general practice in my experience is to nominate them individually then combine into one nomination. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the instructions in the purple box on the WP:FFD main page, step two outlines how to nominate multiple files using {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext}}. Step three outlines how to give notice for multiple files using: {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext}}. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When I use {{subst:ffd2a}}, I have found that it is often a good idea to use the "new section" method to edit the log page (add "?action=edit&section=new" at the end of the URL), as I won't get problems with edit conflicts. The "Uploader=" parameter is optional.
 * Tag all files with . Parameter 1 to ffd is not mentioned in the documentation. See the template source code if you want to find out how it works.
 * {{subst:Fdw-multi}} does in my opinion not work very well as it doesn't specify the section header on the log page. Instead, I typically write a message manually instead.
 * When you add {{subst:ffd2a}} (or {{subst:puf2a}}), you include deletion links for administrators. These unfortunately have the wrong deletion reason: the section title is wrong. Maybe the template should be fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't the onus on those who support deletion?
I'm curious about our deletion policies regarding works thought to be in the public domain. recently led an effort to delete File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg because they challenged the long-standing belief that the image is PD in the US. They did not, however, provide any evidence that the image was ever copyrighted. It was apparently published in 1967 without a CRN, and there is no reason to believe that the image was registered within ten years of its initial release. How can an image be deleted because nobody has proven that its not PD? The notion that the onus is on editors to assert a negative seems like a logic fail—how can we prove that something did not happen? I understand the practice of assuming on the safe side, but after several editors have demonstrated a degree of due diligence, why do we assume them to be wrong absent any evidence that they are wrong? Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because of how US copyright law works, we need positive identification of the PD claim to call something PD. Thus, in this case, if the claim by those wanting to retail the file is that there's no copyright mark for a work where the copyright mark had to be there in the time period to retain copyright, they have to provide that evidence that that is the case.
 * There are probably only a handful of cases where this issue is flipped - in that a work that would otherwise clearly be considered PD may be considered non-free and need to be deleted. A hypothetical case: an image created by, as best as any source give, an anonymous individual which is 120 past its creation and published with notice is likely in the PD, but if a person believes that they know the creator and the image would still fall within the life+70 term, then there would be reason to say it's non-free. However the affirmation of who that creator is has to be made by the nominator with proof if that is otherwise going against the known wisdom of the image's history. --M ASEM (t) 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I hear you, but how exactly does one prove that something did not happen? With images I can prove that there was no CRN on the first US pressing (although what would prevent an editor from removing it?) and that there is no evidence that a copyright on the album cover was ever renewed, but beyond that how does one prove an image is in the public domain? If we are concerned about using non-free images, then shouldn't there be some requirement that deletionists provide reasons for deletion other than: "I seriously doubt this is PD"? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Masem. Gabe, one proves something did not happen by finding a first edition copy of the album and seeing if it had a copyright notice on it. If it did not, than that thing is likely to be free (see, for instance, the film poster for The Mummy; no notice). If something published in 1967 was not renewed, then that is usually strong evidence that the thing is probably in PD. However, the onus remains on the uploader, because all works are assumed to be copyrighted unless shown otherwise. That's why Commons has the precautionary principle, and why files without a license may be speedy deleted on the English Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, are you saying that all I need to do is upload a photograph of both sides of the album to prove that there was no CPR notice for the photographs, because that was done at the deletion discussion. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The inner covers as well (assuming that it is the original 1967 album and not a reissue), as all album covers have at least four pages on which to place a copyright notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco, the original AYE vinyl LP came in a cardboard sleeve that had no inner pages. There's just the front and back cover. There is no printing inside the sleeve, which doesn't even open except on one side. If you look at the ones for sale on eBay you will see what I mean. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From Are You Experienced: "Ferris chose the cover's yellow background and its surreal lettering, and he intended for a textured gatefold jacket that Reprise, as a cost-saving measure, did not approve. The back of the sleeve featured a monochrome image of the Experience.[141]" GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the photograph used on the cover was shot in Britain and indeed the cover appears to have been designed there by Ferris, it should be noted that in that country copyright is inherent in a work and no notice or other assertion of copyright is actually needed, although of course it is allowed. A work has to be specifically released into the public domain, PD cannot be assumed. -  Nick Thorne  talk  23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it was first published in the US? In fact, this cover was never issued in the UK until many years after 1972. The film was probably first developed in the US, by Reprise. What about File:John Lennon Imagine 1971.jpg? Its a photograph of Lennon in England, but it was first published in the US. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe US copyright law determines copyright status of a work based on country of first publication, not on the citizenship of the copyright holder; that is also how Commons treats copyright. Not sure how UK law treats the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dated deletion categories?
In Category:Wikipedia possibly unfree files, we have dated categories for possibly unfree files. However, we do not have any dated categories for files for deletion. Should we have that? Today, I accidentally noticed a file, File:嘉顺皇后.jpg, which was nominated for deletion back in November last year. The file had accidentally been deleted from the daily log page by, and this remained overlooked until now. With dated categories, we would have spotted this earlier as we would have had a category with files but no seemingly open discussions on the daily log page. There might be other similar examples out there somewhere which currently are hard to find. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Everytime, you mention me, I get an email. Can you link to this deletion I made?— cyberpower ChatOnline 14:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See . You edited one section and deleted another section. Based on the edit summary, the section deletion seems to have been caused by a software bug. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How to delete an obsolete version?
I'd like to delete the earlier version of File:Gaohuaide_1797.jpg that I uploaded back in December 2012, but I couldn't figure out how to proceed. Thanks in advance. Timmyshin (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't. It is usually a good idea to retain old versions in case someone else has some use for it. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'd have to delete the file altogether and reupload it then. Timmyshin (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't. That would be an even worse solution as the original history goes away. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Botched transfers to Commons
How should I handle an image like File:WilliamDickersonDetentionFacility.jpg, which is missing info here but was anyway transferred to Commons under the same name? Instead of using a tool or bot, the user re-uploaded the image and referenced enwp as the source. How can I generate the "original upload" and file description info to preserve the attribution history at its Commons location? – czar   19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Found my answer: magog/fileinfo.php. This tool is wonderful! It generates the text to import into Commons—just what I wanted. – czar   06:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal deletion request
I requested deletion or changing licences to CC BY-NC-ND of those photos; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emin_Kul.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heart_Of_Istanbul_From_Air.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levent_%282011%29.jpg on 23 August 2015, nobody contacted to me and images are still there, what should I do?

--Ail Subway (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPPROP
There is currently an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on whether or not Non-free content review's functionality should be merged into WP:FFD and then WP:NFCR shut down. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned files with Keep local tag
A couple of nominations closed recently regarding File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG and File:Clark County Courthouse Indiana 002.JPG - there are other examples. These are files that were tagged with Keep local by the uploader years ago, but are no longer used in any Wikipedia articles. The debates were closed as "keep" because of the Keep Local tag. I'm wondering if there's any real policy reason to keep copies of these types of images on the local project. The current presumption seems to default to "keep" even if nobody defends retention of the file.

I've run across other situations where the uploader of images with the "Keep local" tag has obviously retired or been absent for years. In those cases is it all right for any editor to remove the tag?

Any clarification/insight is appreciated. Kelly hi! 08:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Kelly  hi! 08:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

template:PD-Pre1978 and template:PD-US-no notice
PD-Pre1978 and PD-US-no notice have been nominated for discussion under WP:TfD -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of upcoming move of this page to Files for discussion
There has been consensus to move Files for deletion to Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice is placed here instead of making an immediate change since this change affects multiple bots and gadgets like Twinkle.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Date subpages
Shall we rename currently active subpages from "deletion" to "discussion" right away? --George Ho (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing so could potentially break some functions of the bot that manages FFD. I'd say that we're getting close to the point where the bot can start changing them all when they are created, though. After Twinkle is updated to remove WP:NFCR from their selectable options, the next step would be for the bot's functions to name the pages "discussion" instead of "deletion" with Twinkle being updated at basically the exact same time. (After NFCR is removed from Twinkle, AnomieBOT's runner needs to be notified about stating a process to rename the pages; this part may take a while depending on how the bot needs to be updated.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying the uploader
The FfD template has uploader for notifying the editor who uploaded the file that it is being discussed. This makes perfect sense when the deletion of the file is being discussed, which was always the case when FfD was "Files for Deletion". Is notifying th uploader really necessary, however, when the discussion of a non-free file's particular usage is being discussed? Whether the non-free usage satisfies the NFCC may have nothing to do with the original uploader because non-free files are often simply copied and pasted from one article to another by editors who fail to provide nfurs or who provide inappropriate nfurs. Such files are often OK for the article(s) where they have a valid nfur, so they are not at risk of deletion as an orphan. In such cases, notifying the uploader does not seem as necessary as notifying the editor(s) who may have been adding the file to multiple articles in a manner which doesn't satisfy the NFCC. Is there a way to use the template to notify someone other than the uploader in such cases? Perhaps by adding an new parameter such as "editor1", "editor2", etc.? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is still appropriate to notify the uploader in the event of a possible WP:NFCC concern, given that the uploader should have an opportunity to explain how their file may not violate NFCC usage. Also, FFD discussions usually almost always last no longer than 7 days, so it is best that the uploader know as soon as possible wag his going on with their image so that can participate in the discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think that it is useful to notify the user who added the file to the article in which the use is disputed, but it takes a lot of time to identify that user, so notifying that user shouldn't be a mandatory step. I don't know if it is useful to notify the original uploader in every situation, but it is easier to always notify the original uploader instead of trying to guess when notifying is appropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be feasible to have a "last user" parameter or something similar added to the "ffd2" template that could be used to notify the last editor to add the non-free content whose nfur is being disputed? A new template would need to be created, but it could be modeled after Template:fdw. An "article" parameter would need to be added, and it could be worded as follows: "The non-free File you added to Article has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~" Since it might take a bit of searching to find the last editor to add the image, it could be an optional parameter for sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Often abbreviated"
The instructions contain a couple of common rationales for deletion. It says that some of the rationales often are abbreviated as two letters. In my experience, the abbreviations are mostly used by inexperienced editors who make their first FFD nomination, probably because they have looked at the instructions when posting the request and thought that the abbreviations are commonly used. Would it be a good idea to remove the two-letter abbreviations from the instructions? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, especially since abbreviations can be confusing and add a learning curve.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

AGF and a need for "proof"?
Should an uploader be trusted if they upload an image with a claim that it was created at a particular date? Should they be trusted if this is credible, and if they are an established and trusted editor?

Specifically, should a claim that an image (which looks old) is dated to "1930"? In the context of this image, that is then enough to justify a PD claim under PD-Russia-2008.

Or should the uploader be required (on pain of CSD file deletion) to "prove" this date? (How?)  Or to give a source for the image? (Which is still unlikely to answer the date issue)

My understanding, throughout WP's history, has been that AGF encourages us to trust an uploader on such a basis and to believe their claims. Only if we have some credible suspicion that either the image, its provenance, or the behaviour of the uploader, is dubious do we require any more than this.

The image in question is File:Taitsy.jpg, BTW

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My sense is that de facto policy is that claims of "own work" are generally trusted unless there is some evidence of a problem, e.g missing or inconsistent EXIF metadata or a history of verified false claims. We can't have a different policy because there is no way to verify "own work" claims with 100% reliability short of a full police-like investigation that we can't do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The uploader always need to provide a source unless the file is below the threshold of originality. How else would anyone be able to verify that the copyright tag is valid? If the uploader only has a source which won't answer the date issue, then the uploader will have to provide some other evidence that the date is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge
As stated above, there has been consensus formed in a closed discussion on WP:VPPROP that was advertised on both WT:FFD and WT:NFCR, as well as renaming Files for deletion to Files for discussion. The question now is ... how can this be accomplished? Here's the order that this probably needs to be done, considering that this change affects two other related items that need to be updated at some point to avoid "breaking things": Twinkle's functionality and AnomieBOT's tasks (since it updates and creates WP:FFD and its daily subpages): How does this look? Am I missing anything, or is any of this in the wrong order? Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Update the instructions on WP:FFD to include a description of how to utilize this forum for tasks that were formerly handled by WP:NFCR;
 * 2) *✅ by Sfan00 IMG and myself. Steel1943  (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Mark NFCR historical, referring editors to FFD to start discussions that were formerly handled by NFCR
 * ✅ by Oiyarbepsy and This, that and the other. Steel1943  (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) *Note: During this transition, all active discussions on NFCR before it being marked historical should either remain there until they are closed or be relisted on WP:FFD in small amounts (maybe 5 maximum per day); the explanation on how to participate in NFCR discussions, as well as how to close them, should remain there until all discussions are closed. In my opinion, dumping the over 100 discussions currently on NFCR into a daily subpage of FFD makes no sense as it seems very disruptive. Once all of NFCR's discussions are closed or relisted on WP:FFD, NFCR could then be updated again to declare it officially closed (as opposed to redirecting it to FFD since NFCR has a discussion archive);
 * Update: A new opinion/option about what can be done has been added to the previous comment in bold italics; given the amount of participation on NFCR and that it is a courtesy to inform an uploader if their image is nominated for FFD, moving the nominations over provides the potential for more input on the nominations. Steel1943  (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Updating Twinkle to remove the NFCR option from its menus while adding an explanation of the FFD option about the function that FFD now handles that NFCR used to previously. (This will prevent further discussions from unintentionally being posted on NFCR by Twinkle);
 * 2) *✅ by This, that and the other. Steel1943  (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) AnomieBOT's tasks would need to be updated to at least start naming new subpages as "Files for discussion" instead of "Files for deletion", as well as having AnomieBOT re-tasked to update the transclusions of the daily log pages on "Wikipedia:Files for discussion" instead of "Wikipedia:Files for deletion"; At the present time, Files for discussion exists as a redirect to Files for deletion, so that may help with making this transition smoother if the bot edits the target of the redirect instead of the redirect itself. (This is just my high-level understanding of what would need to be done to the bot to accommodate this change; the bot owner will have a better idea what will need to happen here);
 * 4) * - Need confirmation that AnomieBOT will operate as intended after November 17, especially to verify if the transcluded pages at Files for discussion and Files for discussion will be updated by the bot to be named "Files for discussion" instead of "Files for deletion". If this does not resolve itself (the bot may already be programmed to take care of this at the appropriate time), the link to November 18 under "Recent nominations" may be broken due to a lack of redirect from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion". Steel1943  (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Almost immediately after the bot is updated, Twinkle will need to be updated to rename the FFD option from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion" to avoid any misplaced discussions;
 * 6) *✅ by This, that and the other. Steel1943  (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Instructions on FFD should now be updated to accommodate the "deletion" to "discussion" name change (especially templates used in FFD);
 * 8) *. This is an ongoing process as more templates and links are found/discussed, especially cases where "deletion" needs to be changed to "discussion" while explaining the merging of NFCR's former purpose. Steel1943  (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the present time, there is discussion occurring in regards to the new wording of Ffd. See below. Steel1943  (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Files for deletion should now be able to be safely moved to Files for discussion, as well as any applicable FFD archive links updated.
 * 2) *✅ by Od Mishehu. Steel1943  (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ''. . . Pinging Anomie (the editor who runs AnomieBOT). Steel1943  (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's at least one template that would have to be deprecated (non-free review). My suggestion is make the "Deletion" to "Discussion" transition first and make sure there's no bot issues and then we should then mark NFCR historical and move from there. --M ASEM (t) 02:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the FFD page move, it probably could be done whenever, but in my opinion, only after there is confirmation that AnomieBOT's edits on Files for deletion will follow a redirect instead of overwriting a redirect. Steel1943  (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If we're changing "files for deletion" to "files for discussion", where would that leave WP:PUF? Kelly  hi! 02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the discussion, merging PUF into this as well was mentioned, but there was no consensus to do so. (The discussion was also closed stating that this suggestion may need to be discussed in a separate discussion.) Steel1943  (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I was only half following the merge discussion at the VP, and had no preference either way so didn't comment. I tend to do everything manually and am not familiar at all with how the bots do that thing they do. Happy to defer to others with respect to this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the changes with Twinkle: Have the changes all ready in sandbox pages before AnomieBOT is updated. I think we should ask Anomie to make them live when his bot is ready. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This procedure seems OK to me, although I think the "Deletion"-->"Discussion" transition can happen before the bot and Twinkle changes.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Should the templates ffd and fdw state one thing if deletion is requested and another thing if discussion is requested? As the template fdw always is supposed to be substituted, the template could be changed at the same time as the switchover, but ffd would need to be updated to check for the nomination date in order to point to the right place (deletion or discussion). I suggest that we do not move existing discussion subpages from "deletion" to "discussion". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We could set up a system similar to Categories for discussion, where we have separate templates for different desired outcomes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New daily subpages of Files for discussion will be created. But what about old daily subpages of Files for deletion? Should they be moved to subpages of Files for discussion? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving them where they are. The process was "files for deletion" when the files were listed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only since 2009; the fact that older discussion pages are at names like Files for deletion/2007 October 22 (not Images and media for deletion/2007 October 22) is a precedent for renaming these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Per this comment on User talk:AnomieBOT from, Files for deletion (the basepage) should be able to be moved safely to Files for discussion without the bot causing issues to the basepage due to former name being a redirect. So, looks like my proposed "step 7" can be done whenever. However, Files for deletion has move protection, but I do believe that the protection should remain for obvious reasons. Masem or Od Mishehu, since I see that you are administrators, would either of you be up for doing this move since you are familiar with the situation? Steel1943  (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved the main page, the page header, the administrator instructions, and the group edit notice (the last one will still work for unmoved subpages due to the redirect); and nominated the categories for updating at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In addition, I have moved the talk page archives to "Files for discussion", and updated the archive templates at the top of this page. Steel1943  (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Given the upcoming fate of WP:NFCR, I'm not sure what should be done with Non-free reviewed or Non-free reviewed no consensus. Steel1943  (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First template can stay as-is; I don't think it's strictly tied to NFCR. The second will need a rewrite - "was discussed at FFD and there wasn't any consensus."Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Templates referring to files discussed at NFCR should probably refer to NFCR in the future too as that was the forum where the files were discussed. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment shouldn't WP:PUF also be rolled up into FFD? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a separate issue. There was consensus to merge NFCR into FFD but not to merge PUF into FFD. If you want to merge PUF into FFD, please propose this at WP:VPPR. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some users use User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to list files at FFD. That script will need to be updated to refer to "discussion" subpages instead of "deletion" subpages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Howcheng.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is necessary to update the oldffdfull template for files which were kept. The template works as long as there are redirects from "Files for deletion" but will stop working when there no longer are redirects. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That template has experienced a number of renames of its target pages and has markup/parserfunctions for handling subpages with different names and naming conventions; a template editor may be able to change it to work under the current scheme.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The mess in the syntax on that page suggests that moving all subpages is a good idea... --Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the moving of all subpages, provided a way to accomplish this task that will not break anything. Also, if this happens, Category:Archived files for deletion discussions will probably need to be renamed to Category:Archived files for discussion discussions per WP:C2D (though there is probably a better recommended name due to the redundancy.) (Pinging Anomie since the category rename change will affect AnomieBOT's functionality.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, moving all of the subpages will not any longer be technically necessary to do in order to accommodate the code in Oldffdfull; I have updated the template to accommodate the change in FFD's name. Steel1943  (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How would a rename of the category affect User:AnomieBOT? The template is added by substituting {{subst:ffd top}}. Isn't it only necessary to update that template if we wish to rename the category? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that it is part of Ffd top and not added when AnomieBOT creates the page. In fact, given this information, I actually consider that category useless and think it should be deleted. Steel1943  (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin closures
What is the recommended procedure for non-admin closures in FFD? In NFCR there weren't usually any outcomes which required admin action, making NFCR closures easier to do. For FFD though I am not certain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say the best route would be to follow WP:NAC as a guideline until one is created specifically for FFD. Steel1943  (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ffd
This template states that the file has been nominated for deletion. We should either change this to state "discussion", or create a different template for discussions about other outcomes than deletion. Note that fdw already has been updated to state "discussion". --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd change it to "The use of this file on Wikipedia is under discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy." Unless there is a better link.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Template:Ffd/sandbox for an idea of what I think may work; I incorporated the example set at Template:Rfd and added Jo-Jo Eumerus' idea to add a link/mention to image use policy. If it looks good, I can add it to the live template. Steel1943  (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...may result in a change of this file" doesn't make sense. What do you mean? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a "retouch" of the wording generated by Template:Rfd, and I agree that in its current state, it's not clear enough (so I left it as a sandbox edit.) If I had to guess what I meant, I'd say that it could be labeled free instead on non-free, removed from certain pages where it should not be (but not deleted), etc. Steel1943  (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did a small edit to clarify "change".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we keep the current ffd template and create a new template for discussions where deletion is not recommended. The red border is typically only used for deletion templates such as tfd while templates for other desired outcomes such as tfm have borders in different colours. This would mean that Twinkle needs to be updated so that you can select the correct FFD template when nominating a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we do that, then a lot of user-friendly functions that Wikipedia already offers, such as Twinkle, will have a more difficult time distinguishing "which template" to tag the file when a discussion is happening. If we have to use separate templates to tag the files when the situation is different, then in my opinion, the WP:NFCR merge should never have happened. I'd rather us improve Ffd to have it encompass all nomination without adjustments necessary or creating a new template for tagging the files. Steel1943  (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the type from "delete" to "discussion" in the sandbox. George Ho (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that the current version in the sandbox should become live. Any objections? Steel1943  (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have updated the template. Steel1943  (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I recently updated the sandbox at Template:Ffd/sandbox by replacing the ombox type from "notice" to "delete" (in other words replaced the blue border and blue question mark with the red border and red exclamation point it had before the FFD rename.) I did not think that the "notice" option stood out enough to let viewers know that the discussion could lead to deletion of the file. Any thoughts on this? Steel1943  (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the blue border looks strange. It makes me think of other templates such as Keep local and ShadowsCommons. Red might be better. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like the red either. I want to change to orange or something. However, I don't see one option available, so I used "notice" instead. How about a portrait frame with orange "!" or triangle? I don't want to use the "delete" parameter,. I could use the FFD for non-deletion discussions. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominating a really large number of files
Is there a special way to nominate a really large number of files from the same uploader for deletion and could such a thing be possibly perceived as Wikihounding?

Up until now, I've been tagging non-free screenshots such as File:Newsopen.png with di-disputed fair use rationale because they simply do not satisfy WP:NFCC. Every file I've tagged to date (about 38) has eventually been deleted by an administrator, so I feel my assessment was correct. The uploader appears to be no longer active on Wikipedia, but it seems from their contribution history that they've uploaded lots of non-free logos/screenshots, such as File:Wzmy weather.JPG, since 2007. None of the screenshots I've seen so far even come close to satisfying WP:NFCC: they are mainly being used in "News operations" or "Newscast" sections like File:Kqca 10pm news.JPG and File:KCRA 3 News at 10 on KQCA My 58.jpg are being used in KQCA.

I think the ones which have been deleted so far are only the very tip of the iceberg. Just from looking at their contribution history, it appears there are many many more of these screenshots. Any comments on how best to proceed or whether doing so is even appropriate at all? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO, if you find a batch of troublesome creations by one specific editor, whether it be files, pages, or anything really, I would not consider nominating several of them "wiki hounding". If there are honest concerns with every nomination you believe has to be made in regards to another editors contributions, you are doing your best to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic by trying to remove pages, files, etc. that should not be here per established standards. If there is an issue with the editor's contributions that may need more involvement than just deletion nominations, that may be something to bring up at WP:ANI. Steel1943  (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply . I think the uploads were made in good faith; I just don't think they are NFCC compliant. fdw-multi can handle up to 26 images at a time, but there are way, way more than 26 files which have been uploaded. Do you know if there's another way to nominate more than 26 files (perhaps even more than a 100 files) at a single time or is it more practical to break them up into groups of 26? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for having to answer your question with another question, but ... These nominations, are you planning on nominating them all in one grouped nomination, or as individual separate nominations? Steel1943  (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So far I've been adding di-disputed fair use rationale to each image and then adding a single di-disputed fair use rationale-notice to user talk followed by a post specifying the other images whose nfurs are being disputed like at User talk:Strafidlo. I only thought about bringing them to FFD since there are many many more such "newscast open" screenshots which have been uploaded, so maybe it would be best to try to take care of them all at once then in bits and pieces. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are marking them for speedy deletion, then you are doing the process in the same manner I would (except for the manual user talk notices), so I see no issues. (I use Twinkle to nominate pages most of the time, which creates an automated individual notice for each one; either method works, though my concern with the "manually adding notices on a user talk page of additional entries" is that the section redirects to the discussions do not exist on the user talk page; however, if they are all grouped as one nomination, I see no issue there.) However, if you are eventually planning on bringing some multi-nominations to FFD directly, fdw-multi seems the best way to go to inform uploaders. (I may be able to update that template to allow more than 26 entries if needed, but I think that 26 may be the limit before the template's code starts crashing things.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Flag images
Not sure where or how to discuss this, but this category seems to be violating WP:NFG and WP:NFCC since many of the flag images displayed are non-free. Strange thing is that the Category page is not showing up in any of the "file usage" section for the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is a technical inevitability. Unless we stop categorizing non-free images or tag all categories that might contain a non-free image as NOGALLERY they are bound to display.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * C'mon now! Those do not apply since this is neither a gallery or article content. This is a Category. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NFG says "In categories that include non-free content, MediaWiki's __NOGALLERY__ code should be used to disable the display of the content while still listing it" and NFCC#9 says "To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it" so they both seem applicable to category pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added NOGALLERY. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

FfD question
I just added a File:Nashville Kats 1997-2001 Logo.png to FFD. I followed the instructions and clicked on the "this edit link" to create an FfD subsection which brought me to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6. I see this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6, but there is nothing listed on that page. The file I added is also not appearing in the WP:FFD" section of the FfD main page. In addition, the "this file's entry" link in the "Ffd" template leads to "Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6", and not "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6". Also, the back link on "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6" says "Wikipedia:Files for deletion", but redirects to "Wikipedia:File for discussion"

I'm not sure if I've done things correctly, so if I haven't could somebody please let me know what I should've done instead. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The instructions in Files for discussion/heading were outdated and pointed at the wrong URL. I have updated the instructions and moved your nomination to the right place. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem during the re-branding phase is that some pages use the old name "Files for deletion" while other pages use the new name "Files for discussion". Most outdated links should still work thanks to redirects, but this wasn't the case with the link you used. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My worry is that AnomieBOT will overwrite these edits to fix the recent day links. I guess we'll find out in the next 24 hours... Steel1943  (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Recent nominations" section is not supposed to be edited. Magic words are used for automatically calculating the most recent dates, making manual updates unnecessary. Therefore, I would assume that no bot ever touches that section. I'm more interested in seeing what's happening with the "Old discussions" section when "files for discussion" subpages are to be added to that section. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware that it should not be edited, but that does not mean that the bot might check to make sure that it never does get edited, and revert the names back to "File for deletion" (which is the entire basis for my concern.) Steel1943  (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , per, a conversion should be made by the bot to stop creating "Files for deletion" redirects on November 17. I would have to assume that the bot will correct the "Old discussion" links on that date. Steel1943  (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Same thing happened again at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 19 regarding another file I nominated. This time I clicked on the "Add a line to today's FfD." link in the "How to list a file for discussion" of the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I just fixed that issue. Steel1943  (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . However, the thread is still not showing up as a "Recent nomination" on the main FFD page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed now. Steel1943  (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Steel1943. I was going to try and fix it myself by copying what Stefan2 did the last time it happened, but I stopped because I wasn't sure of all of the steps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * : Sorry to bother you again, but the same thing happened at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 20. If there some way of doing this so that I don't keep ending up with the same problem, please let me know. I'm following the instructions on the template, but I keep getting screwing it up. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is this link you are clicking on? I must be having a very difficult time finding it. Steel1943  (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The link is the "Add a line to today's FfD" in FFD (you need to click "Show" for "How to list a file for discussion".) is what I click on after I nominate a file for FFD. Anyway, I followed what you did earlier and moved the thread to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 20 and redirected Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 20. If I screwed things up, please let me know what I still need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Found it ... and fixed it. Gotta admit, that one was a bit more difficult for me to find since it was in a template named FfD doc, which I did not know existed until now. Steel1943  (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I had no idea what was going wrong, so didn't want to go messing around with any templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I found the above link problem with fdw-multi. The template directs the uploader to "Wikipedia files for deletion..." -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Steel1943  (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

New addition to nomination statement instructions
Since the renaming of this noticeboard from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion", there has seemingly been some added confusion in regards to the nominator's purpose for nominating the file. Before, the action that the nominator believed should have been taken on the file was deletion of the file; that is no longer the case, especially since the nominator could also be nominating the file for removal from certain pages (if non-free) or to determine if a file marked non-free is actually free. In an effort to clarify this distinction, as well as make the discussions clearer for participants and discussion closers alike, I have boldly made this addition to the instructions at Files for discussion/heading. (After seeing this diff from Dthomsen8, I realized that given the previous state of the instructions, their concern seemed quite valid.) (Pinging parties who have, in one way or another, discussed this before, directly or indirectly: Explicit, Masem, Stefan2, Sfan00 IMG, Finnusertop, Kelly, Marchjuly, and Jo-Jo Eumerus.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation and addition to the instructions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

, I think the instructions should prompt users to first boldly make the changes they want and only bring them to the discussion if they are challenged. Currently the process is clogged up with many uncontroversial cases and it's 'files for sitting here for seven days' rather than for discussion. In particular: non-free files with invalid or missing rationales for some articles may be removed from those articles; non-free images with some other issues may be nominated for speedy deletion. There isn't a speedy deletion category for deleting unused unencyclopedic images (eg. users' profile images), but I don't feel like this is the right place for them either. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, especially since it will help to reduce the amount of nominations. Steel1943  (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:NFCC issue note
(as well as whoever else may be interested): I just found the existence of NFCC issue note. I've never seen this template used before. Could this template have some sort of use in WP:FFD, now that it is the noticeboard for WP:NFCR requests? (It looks as though its purpose is to be placed at the top of articles.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling It looks completely orphaned to me, and has been for a long time apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the idea for that template came after a number of editors objected to having a notice about non-free image problems on the article space pages, and this was created as a potential replacement that was more descriptive, but that never got used. --M ASEM (t) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

FFD drive of Category:Articles with improper non-free content
We should hold frequent drives of systematically going through Category:Articles with improper non-free content in discussion. I just discovered an article tagged since 2013 and implemented a consensus from over two years ago:. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-free content may also mean non-free text. I just found one page where the user who added the template removed some copyvio text before tagging the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, such cases can be forwarded to the relevant forum. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 16:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles with lots of inappropriate fair use pictures
Is there some fast way to list pages with lots of non-free files for discussion? Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contains 12 non-free files while Federated state contains 15, all in violation of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that BetaCommand at one point had a script that compiled how many non-frees were on a page, but I have no idea where that went. --M ASEM (t) 17:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The page you need was Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files but due to the closing of the toolserver it has not been updated for over 2 years. I don't think the script has been migrated to another server yet, so I have asked the editor who posted the configuration if they can assist in getting working again. ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also betacommand-dev/reports/pages with excessive nfcc.html which contains the same information but is more up to date. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stefan. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually MZMcBride‎ has updated Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files with his bot. I don't know, yet, if he will update it to run automatically again. ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a reverse of this; ie. list of non-free files that are used in a high number of articles? Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC) ( emphasis added Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) )
 * Thanks for adding the clarity in that statement. Steel1943  (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this, given that non-free files require fair-use rationale, but free files do not, meaning that really could be placed anywhere and in whatever numbers without legal issues. Steel1943  (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A non-free being used in 20 different articles, for example, could be a sign of a problem, though not an assurance of a problem. It might be a problem if the non-free was being included because it was being including as a template (I've seen that before), or it might be included because someone has a logo for a parent organization being used on each of its child organizations without care, even if each has a proper rationale. Yes, there technically is no limit how many times a non-free can be reused, but anything more than 2, 3, or 4 times likely indicates there might be an issue to be explored. Just as articles with 10+ non-frees might also be a problem and should be evaluated by a human to make sure there's an actual problem. --M ASEM  (t) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My experience is that excessive use is indicative of problems. These are usually logos or pictures of deceased persons that are used without proper FURs, and in a number of cases, no possibility of FURs. I once had non-free logo removed from 79 articles. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experiences, non-free files should be used in as few articles as possible with the preferred amount of articles being 1. In my opinion, if a non-free file is used in an article in which the file does not represent the subject of the article (with the exception of screenshots), I would try to evaluate the usages vs. WP:NFCC with "a fine-toothed comb" to see if its inclusion violates any of the criteria in the slightest. Steel1943  (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the only way this kind of thing is going to be resolved once and for all is for the WMF to officially go on record and provide some guidance as to how the NFCC should apply in such cases by giving specific examples. NFCC discussions, in general, can be a bit subjective, but this is especially true when it comes to NFCC#8 and UUI Nos. 14 and 17. I'm not sure if I totally agree that usage should be limited to a single article, but at the same time I'm not sure how NFCC#3 can ever be truly satisfied any other way. Allowing multiple usage for one particular case may be indeed be OK for that particular case, but the problem is that most editors are not going to see it simply in terms of that particular case. Many are going to see it as establishing some kind of precedent for other similar non-free logos. To them allowing such usage in, for example, organization A's articles, naturally means that it should also be allowed in organization B's articles, etc. Some editors see it as an issue of "fairness" with a few editors ("i.e., anti-image editors) randomly using their fine-toothed NFCC combs on certain articles ("their articles"), but leaving other similar articles alone. Some editors only see it as an all or nothing kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Back on topic: I've been having a blast manually going through the list and each and every non-free image (identified by script) I encounter. I remove images that have no rationale at all for the article I browse, and leave an edit summary:

This is effective in getting rid of 'fair-use' claims that do not even attempt to contain a claim thereof. This however leaves out some delicious cases for FFD. I have not removed images that are sprinkled across a dozen articles whith the same copy pasted rationale that simply says "illustration". If you want to, I can bring these cases to discussion.

After I'm done with all 400 articles ... I'd like to have this (reiterated from above): a list of those non-free files that are used in a ridiculous number of articles . (not articles that have many files, like the present list). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 12:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the list I was looking for exists: High use NFCC. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 14:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thai flags
Could someone please look at the images in List_of_Thai_flags, 2 of which I just found on Commons and added. While looking at discussions of the previously deleted images, I wonder if these were overlooked. I don't know who to ask over there. Perhaps the table should be trimmed, as well. Thanks! —PC-XT+ 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Substituting templates
I have a question about the the substitution of FFD template. Currently the "Create its FfD subsection" in the instructions on the main page say File_name.ext and File:Name of the first file nominated should be used when nominating multiple files for the same reason. So, this is the practice I have followed when nominating multiple files such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 18, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 22, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23, etc. However, the substituted templates are being removed by with edits like, ,  and  and replaced by ffd. If the templates shouldn't be substituted in the first place, then the instructions on the main page should probably be updated. Moreover, one problem with simply replacing them with "ffd" templates is that all the links are broken and there is no log information provided, so clicking on "this file's entry" in the template leads to WP:FFD and not the the thread where the file is actually being discussed. This could lead some to mistakenly assume that the FFD discussion has been concluded. Anyway, I would like some clarification of whether these templates should be substituted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of instructions that said to subst them, the ffd specifically says not to subst it. I'm reading the main page instruction, but I only see substs mentioned for subsections and user notifications, not the file page. I converted the above cases because a bot couldn't parse the pages because of substed text. I'm aware of the log parameter and I checked the above files at the time and they didn't link to a specific log date (i.e. ), just the main page, so simply resulted in almost the same link (except with the anchor to exact file's line). I decided to not add it, because that's how the original nomination did it. Unfortunately, they just fell off the main log due to the date, but they would have before this too. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You should substitute ffd2 and ffd2a but not ffd. If it's hard to remember, you could choose not to substitute any template as a bot will then substitute the ones which need substitution. I fixed an error in Files for discussion/heading. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see where it said that. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem then seems to be the sentence "Also, add File:Name of the first file nominated to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated." So, I've added this template to file#2, file#3, etc. whenever I've nominated multiple files. If those do not need to be substituted, then I suggest revising that sentence to avoid anyone else making the same mistake as I. If there's a way to clean this up so that all the links work, let me know and I go back to all those I nominated and fix the templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I didn't see any others (Article_alerts/Problem_entries/Undated_records), though there might be others that weren't tagged by any project and so weren't checked by the bot. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 02:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on what to do just in case there are? I tried added the log to fix the links with to File:La Fiera FC 2013 logo.png, but the text in the template currently reads as if it was originally tagged on January 28, 2016 and not December 23, 2015. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean "How to list a file for discussion" section, that just defaults to today's date so it's easier to copy-paste on new ones (It said 28th because the page hadn't been edited/purged, so it now says 29th after you edited it). But just having log should suffice and I see you added it to that file sucessfully now. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the instructions. You should not substitute, and you should include the "log" parameter.
 * I adjusted Ffd/sandbox so that it now has this function: {{subst:ffd/sandbox}} no longer results in substitution. Do you think that it would be a good idea to implement this feature in the main ffd template? --Stefan2 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Stefan2. My missteps seem to have created some extra work for you these past few days. Sorry about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free content review.
WP:NFCR was shut down a couple of months ago, but there are still pending discussions that are all stale. Could an admin who works here regularly please go thru closing down those discussions? There are about 35. If something needs more discussion before taking action, I suggest bringing it here. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All remaining NFCR discussions should either be handled there or relisted at FFD. However, I don't think that we are in a hurry. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, this happened a few days ago. Steel1943  (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)