Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review

Some problems with this page
I've found two problems with this page: For example, archives 17, 18 and 19 all contain unclosed sections. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is set up to archive discussions which haven't been edited for 180 days (and immediately if closed). Unfortunately, not all of the archived sections have been closed before archiving them, so we have some unclosed sections in the archive. I think that we should try to get those closed. I don't think that we should have discussions archived unless closed, but if the bot requires that, we could just add another zero at the end which should mean that sections won't be archived until they are about five years old.
 * 2) Sections are sometimes closed with archive top, sometimes with {{subst:archive top}}. If closed with archive top, the bot changes this into  in the archive so that you can't see the closure reason. I will try to go through the archives and remove the bot's tl so that the closure reason becomes visible. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that only closed discussions should be archived. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If discussions are going on for 180 days without being edited, there's a horrific problem with our processes somewhere. I have really never been a fan at how we have partially duplicative image deletion processes.  This process and PUI both partially duplicate IFD, but IFD gets flooded with "crap to delete" discussions that keep the important discussions from getting the attention they deserve.  If I had my druthers, we would remake IFD as WP:Images for discussion/Fair use, WP:Images for discussion/Disputed license status, WP:Images for discussion/Orphaned free content, and maybe WP:Images for discussion/Other.  The first process would be for disputes involving the appropriateness of fair use - even if you only just wanted to have an image removed from one article but kept on another.  The second one would replace PUI.  The third one would be what I call "crap to delete" - images that we don't want or don't need, but if you want them, you're welcome to move them to Commons.  The fourth would be a catch-all for the rare image that is nominated for deletion that doesn't fall into one of these categories.  For example+, sometimes we have in-use images that are unencyclopedic for one reason or another. --B (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not too happy about how file deletions are split up. This page is for discussing images which are thought to violate WP:NFCC in one or more articles while WP:FFD is for images which should be deleted. As images violating WP:NFCC in one or more article often should be deleted, this creates an unnecessary overlap, and I think that it would be better to have all WP:NFCC discussions at the same place, regardless of whether a file should be deleted from only some or from all articles in which it is used. A good thing with this page is that it is possible to discuss an article rather than a particular image, which is appropriate in WP:NFCC cases where there may be two images out of which we should only keep one.
 * If no one disagrees, I plan to effectively disable automatic archival for unclosed discussions on this page by adding one or two zeroes at the end of the age setting (thereby changing the age to 5 or 50 years), close discussions in the archive if they are moot (mainly if the file has been discussed on WP:PUF or WP:FFD after being posted here) and then move back the rest of the discussion to this page so that they can be closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, there is another group of files: files listed as unfree which are likely free. I'm not sure where to discuss such files. Maybe it would be best to simply extend WP:PUF to those files? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "Possibly Free Files" would be something we would put in WP:Images for discussion/Disputed license status in my dream world. --B (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As the bot is again archiving unclosed discussions, I'm changing the archiving delay from 180 days to 1800 days. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin closes?
The How to close section says, "Any editor may close a discussion" without further elaboration. Can we change this to be something more like the AFD closing rules where uninvolved non-admins may close a discussion only in accordance with Non-admin_closure? In other words, it needs to be an unambiguous keep (or, at least, an unambiguous decision that does not involve the deletion of any image that is a part of the nomination - obviously, you could have decisions where it is removed from one article but kept in another). If any of the images that are part of the particular nomination need to be deleted, or the nomination is at all contested, it should probably be left to an administrator. --B (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that discussions often are closed by someone who is involved. I would say that this only is appropriate if a nomination is withdrawn (if no one has been supporting it) or if the discussion is a duplicate of another ongoing or later discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this language? "Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Discussions that are withdrawn, clearly invalid (e.g. nominations of images with a free content license), or are being non-controversially merged or moved to a different forum may be closed by any user subject to the principles of Non-admin closure." --B (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about simply deciding that the rules deciding who can close a discussion here should be the same as the corresponding rules for FFD? Otherwise, there may be a loophole in which you can choose whichever forum is more favourable if both options would be possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My language would be suitable for FFD and consistent with our practices, right? (Except for images with a free license obviously not being invalid at FFD - we'd need a different example there.) --B (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be more or less the same, yes. However, I think that we should just decide that this page should use exactly the same rules at all times so that any changes to FFD closing rules also automatically apply to this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a probem with this system. There is a discussion that has been resolved for almost a month. The guidelines do not say that the user can not be involved. What they say is, "Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." Seems to me that the issue is resolved. Why are people making up new rules? --evrik (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure for any discussion is to have an un-involved user close them. Werieth (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem. This has now languished for almost a month after it has been resolved. --evrik (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are discussions that have been open since the beginning of February, the section you are involved with and attempted to close has been open for less than a month. User:Werieth/Sandbox makes an interesting read. Werieth (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are even older discussions in the archives which are still awaiting closure. Unclosed discussions are archived if no one has commented on them for at least half a year. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed a number of discussions on this page. What I do to avoid problems with being involved is I simply close only discussions where either there is no longer an issue with NFCC (for example if all violating uses of a file have been removed and all other uses have valid rationales) or the file has been deleted. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  16:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed discussions as well. There is nothing in the guidelines that says you cant be involved. If you look at the link posed above, I think there is no question the issues have been resolved. --evrik (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive gone ahead and requested closure on all sections without a comment in the last 30 days see here Werieth (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is in my opinion that you shouldn't be involved and that you should know what you are doing. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, but the stated policy is at Non-admin_closure. It says nothing about not being involved. --evrik (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You should really read the whole page Non-admin_closure The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate. which you did Werieth (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what I said was, "Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed." If somehow this shows a conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, then the system is truly whacked and needs to be fixed. Especially since what you just cited says, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." In the end, no one is disputing that the discussion has been resolved, just that I made a comment. This is a problem with the way things are being run. --evrik (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the way it works. If you comment on a discussion, you are involved, and ineligible to close, even if you are closing counter to your view. --M ASEM (t) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which policy or guideline says you cannot close a discussion if you are involved? As far as I know, we don't have such a policy or guideline, so I do not see what is wrong with editors who have participated in the discussion closing them if there no longer is something to discuss. I agree that discussions where no consensus has formed yet or where the issue with NFCC still isn't resolved should not be closed, irregardless of whether the closing editor is an admin or not. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  06:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --evrik (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:INVOLVED says that an admin mustn't be involved. Non-admin_closure tells that a non-admin can't close a discussion if there is a potential conflict of interests. In a lot of situations, you will find that those two boil down to essentially the same thing (as being involved often implies that you have a potentional conflict of interests, and vice versa). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While that is true. Let's say the result is keep and the conversation is over for a while. Closing the discussion should be non-controversial. --evrik (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Non-free review
I notice that Non-free review was recently changed from saying

"The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia is under review for compliance with our policies on non-free content."

to "The usage of non-free media on this page is under review for its compliance with the policies regarding non-free content."

Since I mainly used this template for tagging the pages in File: namespace of the media under review, I think the previous formulation was more fitting. The current formulation sounds as if the use of the media on the page in the File: namespace were being reviewed. I have no problem with the new color or the icon, but think the formulation should be changed back. Thoughts? --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  05:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I simply reverted back to the old appearance 6 days ago. This is just a (late) courtesy notice in case anyone disagrees or whatever. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The template is used in the file and article namespaces and should maybe be adjusted to show a different text depending on the namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this sounds like a good solution. I think the magic word could be used for that, though I am not sure what exactly the expression of the parser function would have to look like. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Inactive discussions on this page
Could we develop a definitive set of rules for cases such as that state what happens if there was no input to a discussion in a specified period of time? Otherwise some of those discussions will be sitting on this page forever without any action taken. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It just needs someone to close the discussion. Ill take all open discussions without a comment in the last 30 days and have a admin close them. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can close it. --evrik (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that it was closed with the comment "Inactive discussion." That comment doesn't show whether it satisfies any of the 10 criteria at WP:NFCC or not, so I assume that the file should be deleted within 48 hours per WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted." --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to keep. --evrik (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how it complies with WP:NFCC, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs. --evrik (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC requires affirmed consensus to keep images, so unlike regular AFDs where no consensus defaults to keep, no consensus in NFCC defaults to delete. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Per the rubric to WP:FFD: "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."  There was an RfC that examined and upheld this a few years back.  Jheald (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How to nominate
I think the instructions should be rewritten to include direction, and a template to notify the uploader. --evrik (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think a warning template is needed. I made an attempt to notify a user here.--evrik (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the process for non-free believed too simple for originality.
I'd like to suggest that we create a template that an editor can add to file page when the editor is highly confident that an image marked non-free is really ineligible for copyright due to falling below the threshold of originality (straight-up text logos, for example). The template would be added along with the editor changing the non-free to free licenses (and retaining necessary source info), to indicate that the license was changed due to this. This would add the image to a admin-check category that should be reviewed to verify that the tag was placed appropriately and flip a parameter to show this, removing it from that category and (possibly) placing the image in "transfer-to-commons". This would prevent what are a lot of trivial cases of "non-free that should be free" clogging NFCR. Note that this should only be for the most obvious cases where there's no question of TOO issues; if the editor is not sure, NFCR is still the right venue. --M ASEM (t) 19:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's necessary. If it's that obvious, then just replace the tags, no need for an admin to review. You can already do this now, and requiring a separate process is unenforceable. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool idea. As someone who now mainly uses NFCR to bring up cases where an image might be below TOO, I could definitely use that, so I support the creation of this template. It would mean I could limit the cases I bring to NFCR to those where there is an issue with NFCC#8 (NFCC#10c is handled by me as a separate process already independent of NFCR). --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * NFUR not needed also exists. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Template for tagging a file under review?
Which template can I use to tag the files in the section Non-free content review? Non-free review automatically generates a link which requires the section to be named like the file. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use Werieth (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tagged all files accordingly. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle
As Sfan and others have discovered, Twinkle now allows you to quickly bring files to NFCR for review. The interface is accessible through the XFD module and should be fairly self-explanatory.

If there are any issues with the way Twinkle is formatting its requests, etc, please let us know at WT:TW. Thanks to for the suggestion. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Spamming with possibly free files
This page has recently been spammed with lots of discussions about files listed as unfree which may be free. Those discussions seem to be out of scope for this page as the page focuses on discussions about whether an image meets the WP:NFCC policy, i.e. completely different discussions. They also remove the focus from the main purpose of this page. Would it be acceptable to simply close all of the discussions about the possibly free files with the comment "wrong forum"? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a new page should be setup for possibly free (reduce the workload on this page), but see 3 Sections up. This is the correct forum. Werieth (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone who regularly lists non-free files here that are possibly free I have to ask why this is the wrong forum. If an image is tagged as NFC but might be actually free, then this seems like an NFCC issue to me (particularly NFCC#1). Spot checking, all of those files listed currently seem to be tagged as non-free. While I agree that the page is currently pretty full, I don't think the reason for this is that people are spamming the page with out of scope discussions. We just need more people who volunteer here and need to speed up the whole review process. The discussions need to be closed more quickly. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this at one of the village pumps recently where WP:PUF, WP:NFCR and other pages were proposed for this. Sadly, I don't remember which village pump it was or how it ended. Personally, I would say that WP:PUF is a more suitable forum as it is essentially the same situation but reversed. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if the only use of the file is one page and you believe (firmly) that it fails NFCC#8 in good faith, then FFD is the right venue. (alternate, if you believe that all uses of the file all fail NFCC#8 in the same manner, then FFD is the right place) If you think there's an issue but not a strong enough conviction to FFD it, or if the file is used multiple times but with only some uses infringing, then NFCR is the right place. --M ASEM  (t) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding using PUF, that doesn't appear to be the correct venue to me. The notice at the top says "This page is for listing and discussing files that are marked as available under a free license or public domain...." The files currently listed here all seem to be tagged as non-free. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  14:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Creating a new noticeboard for non-free files that might fall below WP:TOO
Should we simply create a separate noticeboard for cases of non-free files that might be below TOO to reduce the number of cases on this page? --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  11:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of these are what are likely obvious cases and thus should be simply changed over, assuming the editor is working in good faith. (That's why I suggested a tag that would put these in a second category for human maintenance to make sure that the retag was proper). NFCR should not be spammed with unquestionable cases. --M ASEM  (t) 13:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I expanded my NFCC task description and added a process for retagging NFC below TOO as PD. See the section Retagging NFC below TOO for more information. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  10:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its fair to do that, with the category just in case someone wants to check the work. We AGF but even so, someone may get it wrong so its good to have a check. --M ASEM (t) 12:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal
I made a proposal for a new WikiProject. For details, please see WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Patrol. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on applying WP:NFCC to screenshots of TV episodes
There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion that people here might be interested in. It concerns whether or not it violates WP:NFCC to show a screenshot in an article about a television episode. Your input would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why Bother...?
Along with the multitude of problems with this policy/page noted above, one has to wonder 'why even bother?'. As one user put it; "'This discussion is redundant thanks to FFD, no matter which is first. Go to WP:FFD and speak there. I'll re-close this, okay?' --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)" If any discussion, can simply be shut down, at any time, by anybody... what's the point? In this case, it seems someone just has to pop the issue onto another policy/page, making this one... "redundant". -  thewolfchild  20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCR is for images where deletion may not be the right solution (such as an image used on multiple pages, where one use is no contest but others are a problem), or where there are issues of excessive non-free that need to be selected for reduction; an image may be determined that deletion is the next step, but that will lead to a fresh FFD discussion on that issue. FFD is when the action sought is deletion, that all uses of the image are believed to be inappropriate with no means to rectify the situation. So they are different venues for different purposes. Importantly, FFD require an admin to review, while NFCR cases can be closed by any experience editor. --M ASEM (t) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg
The discussion has been closed as "No consensus". So what? Should I just relist it in a new section? Should I revert the closing? I am still of the opinion that this file violates NFCC#8. And per WP:NFCCE it is NOT my responsibility to demonstrate that the file violates NFCC#8. It's the job of the people who want to keep this file to show that the file's use satisfies NFCC#8. The image is not essential in order to understand either Pokémon episodes removed from rotation or Photosensitive epilepsy. I am going to remove the file from both articles shortly unless a convincing reason for keeping it is provided here. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With NFCR No consensus isnt a valid closing rationale. Werieth (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As you seem to think that the image violates WP:NFCC in all articles in which the image is used, listing it at WP:FFD is also a possibility. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The file is at FFD now. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  15:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As the closing editor, I am more than happy to reopen it/nullify my closure, but FFD is a better place for it to be handled in a much quicker fashion. Also, no consensus actually is a valid closing rationale according to the header on NFCR:  "Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here." No discussion since July 7, that's 15.5 weeks ago, more than long enough for no consensus, especially since the only discussion was between 2 people. One person says it fails NFCC#8 and the other argued that it didn't.  No other discussion, no other input, so therefore no consensus. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  20:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Template:Non-free review
There is an RFC on Template talk:Non-free review regarding the appropriate use of that template. --M ASEM (t) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The closing administrator found no consensus on supporting use of template in articles. So the template must be solely used in files. --George Ho (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * However, that doesn't solve another problem: how are users supposed to be informed of discussions held at article level? Not at all? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now the only way is for us to tag every non-free file on that page that needs discussion. Very tedious. An alternative would be to drop a note at the talk page.  As it stands right now, we already have pushback that there is not enough notice given about these discussion, and I believe the outcome of the RFC has tied our hands on that matter. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  23:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Create "before commenting" guideline?
People vote either "keep" or "delete" on certain images as if the NFCR were FFD's twin. They should discuss, NOT vote. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be a before commenting guideline as most noms knows what they are doing. Werieth (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Renamed. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite guidelines to mention practice of nominating non-free files that are proposed to be free
I tried my hand at rewriting Non-free content review/guidelines to reflect this now-common practce, but I wasn't satisfied with my efforts, so the page is currently left unchanged. Anyone is welcome to make proposed modifications to that page or suggest them here. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 00:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-free review template discussion
I started a discussion about Non-free review at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  14:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: I reopened the proposal at the village pump. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Investigating image copyrights
Where is the best place to investigate the copyright status of the two images at http://navigatela.lacity.org/downtownla/incidents/DLAHistorical.cfm?PK=73? The top image has to be from after 1939 when the annex on the right was completed. The bottom image has to be from between 1931 and 1938. I would like to use these images at Broadway Hollywood Building.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps contact the Los Angeles Public Library Photo Database (which is where the claim is those photos are from) and see if they have details? --M ASEM  (t) 15:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding CSD criterion F7
I have proposed reorganising speedy deletion criterion F7, which deals with invalid fair use claims, into sub-criteria to improve clarity. Your comments on this would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Equivalent of an oldifdfull template?
The Non-free reviewed template that the instructions suggest is really not great because it doesn't give a way of linking to the discussion. Would there be any objections to creating a talk page template similar to oldifdfull? Obviously, because we don't have dated pages here, the date would have to be changed to a diff of the closed discussion, but at least that would give anyone who is looking at the image in the future a clue that an actual discussion was held before, as opposed to just one person looking at it and deciding that the image looks good. --B (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. Note that the discussion will end up on an archive page. Entering the archive number would be a good idea so that we can provide an exact link instead of a diff link (but the archive number won't be known until the discussion has been archived). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Move FFD-worthy nominations to FFD
I would like to propose that if someone nominates exactly one image, especially if that image is used on only one page, AND the desired outcome is deletion that we immediately close the discussion here and move it to FFD (if appropriate). This page gets overwhelmed and discussions that actually do need some attention rarely get it. --B (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When that happens, I'd suggest that we close the discussion immediately and move the file to FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have boldly edited the page guidelines to say that nominations for exactly one file where the desired outcome is deletion will be summarily moved. --B (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding No. 17 of NFC#UUI
There's a discussion regarding No. 17 of WP:NFC currently ongoing at WT:NFC and how it should be interpreted and applied. All interested editors are welcome to comment. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above thread was archived at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64 without much discussion and without anything beign resolved. I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but sport team logos continue to be one of the major areas where problems with No.17 of UUI are found as can be seen from looking at the posts on NFCR including the recent WP:NFCR. Many teams belonging to the same organization (like a university) actually do use the same logo without any distinction between teams. I've tried discussing this various times on NFCR as well as at various talk pages like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96 and Talk:United States men's national soccer team, but those in favor of allowing such usage always seem to argue that "common sense" should take precedence over No. 17 per WP:IAR, etc. I've removed images like those referred to above from countless articles, only to see some of them reinstated almost immediately. Maybe number No. 17 needs more discussion by the community (including people from the WMF) to determine once and for all whether it is possible to allow non-free logos to be used like this? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this the right place?
Over the years, people have added this file to the infobox for the real world actress Samantha Bond. I've always thought that we couldn't use non-free content in biographical infoboxes. Also, we couldn't use an image of the character that an actor plays in the infobox for the actor.

Recently, another editor has again brought up this discussion and they claim that it's a common practice to use Fair Use files in actor bios, especially for soap opera actors.

So, would this page be the appropriate place to bring this issue up for review? If not, where is a better place? Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this (well, the non-talk page) is the right place since there is a use of the file that is legit (on the Miss Moneypennny page), but the other use may not be. You should open a case there. --M ASEM (t) 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, I meant the non-talk page. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks! Dismas |(talk) 21:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPPROP
There is currently an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on whether or not this page's functionality should be merged into WP:FFD and this page shut down. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 2 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) 08:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of upcoming merging of this page to WP:FFD
There has been consensus to merge this page and its functionality into a new forum called Files for discussion (most likely created after Files for deletion is renamed.) 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) 22:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What should we do with the current discussions? Leave them here until they are closed? Move them to FFD? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that after the merger happens, all new discussions intended for this page should be started at WP:FFD, but this page should remain open until all current discussions are closed. Placing over 100 discussions on WP:FFD at once, with the way the forum is currently set up, seems both impossible and disruptive. Steel1943  (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: The current discussion about the completion of this merge can be found at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7. Steel1943  (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't WP:PUF also be rolled up into FFD? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the recent discussion at WP:VPPR, there was consensus to merge NFCR into FFD, but there was no consensus to merge PUF into FFD. If you want to merge PUF into FFD, please seek consensus for this at WP:VPPR. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This merge was actually a really terrible idea
Because the only thing that was accomplished was making closures over at WP:FFD all that more complex and time-consuming. It is of no help that participation at that venue is already low as it is, and I'm essentially the only admin who works in that area. The results of most discussions there were rather straight-forward, but the negligence that WP:NFCR faced had been unloaded there instead. This turned out to be a lot less helpful than what was expected. — ξ xplicit  03:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All requests will need to be closed at some point anyway, and it shouldn't matter a lot if the closure needs to be done on this page or on a different page. If a discussion is too complex or time-consuming, you could always leave the closure to someone else. In my opinion, there is no difference between leaving an unclosed discussion for half a year on this page and leaving an unclosed discussion for half a year on a daily FFD log page. It is unfortunate that there are too few users active in the area. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I share Stefan2's thoughts here, and really cannot word mine any differently. I hope that the combining of the two noticeboards promotes more involvement at FFD of editors and administrators alike. I know you have been doing essentially all recent deletion closes all by yourself, and that deserves a huge "thank you" from myself and the community. Steel1943  (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are discussions that are more than just "keep" or "delete", and for those, there is not longer a central page that one can watchlist to see when input is needed, due to the daily page break FFD uses. This was my fear when this proposal to merge these were made, and I don't think all the effects were thought out. Leaving discussions open for half a year doesn't work well here. --M ASEM (t) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of an inquiry for you, since I know you participated on NFCR a bit before the merge: Did you run across many situations on NFCR that honestly required that the discussion be open for half a year? I mean, granted, I did see some instances where comments were added to a discussion a month or two after the discussion opened, but from the ones I saw, it looked like comments were added due to almost the fact alone that the discussion was still open when it could have been closed a month or so prior. Steel1943  (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem there was the lack of admins to close these, not that the discussions needed to stay open over a year. Because I was the most frequent contributor, I felt I was too involved to actually close most of those, and as Stefan points out, there are too few admins in this area that want to help (I fear the whole situation with BetaCommand soured admin issues relating to NFC). There was a better unmerged solution by requiring any one-month-old discussion, if stale, to be closed, but the issue with stale discussions wasn't brought up for the reason for the merge, it was the claim of confusion of proper venue. --M ASEM  (t) 20:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Steel1943, in the past, there were some unclosed requests which were automatically archived because they had been listed on this page for more than six months without being closed, so I had to change the archiving settings so that automatic archiving doesn't occur until after 60 months instead of 6. Lack of admins in the area is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did close some NFCR threads which either seemed resolved or which had been stagnant for some time. I thought this was acceptable per WP:NACD since most of the threads tended to be more of a discussion about how the NFCC apply, and actual !votes for deleting an image tended to be referred to the old FFD. I'm not sure, however, if the same can be done on the new FFD. Editors seem to be casting !votes even when the discussion is about applying the NFCC and not about deletion. Threads also seem to have become more complicated since they may start out discussing whether a non-free file satisfies the NFCC, but then gradually evolve into a deletion discussion.
 * One of my observations about NFCR was that there did seem to be a lack of active admin participation. A file would be posted for discussion and there would seem to be a consensus that its usage was not NFCC compliant, but many times that was a far as things went and the file would remain in the article. When a file was removed by a non-admin, it was often simply re-added despite reference being given to the relevant NFCR discussion. It would be removed again and only to be re-added again. Occasionally, an editor wanting to use a file would post at NFCR and claim that there was nothing wrong with its non-free use, which meant you ended up with one side saying a file shouldn't be used and the other saying it was OK to use. Very seldom would an admin come along and help resolve such things either way so threads stayed open for much longer then they probably should have. In AfD discussions, a "no consensus" is by default a "keep", but can we have a such a default keep in FFD discussions involving copyrighted content. Isn't a file either NFCC compliant or not NFCC compliant?

Here are some examples for reference: A former logo of a radio station being used in a purely decorative manner like WP:NFCR seems (at least to me) seems clearly problematic per WP:NFCC; Wp:NFCR, WP:NFCR, WP:NFCR, WP:NFCR and WP:NFCR also seem clearly (at least to me) problematic per No. 17 of WP:NFC. All of the files were removed only to be quickly re-added. If they are removed again and they will almost surely be re-added. Attempts were made to discuss their non-free usage at NFCR, but no replies were ever received or the relevant discussion stagnated and was never resolved. So, by default, these files remain in use even though the consensus in other similar cases has been that such usage is not NFCC compliant.
 * Simply moving unresolved NFCR threads to FFD just means that there are now more unresolved threads on FFD. These will likely stay unresolved until an admin decides to intervene either way. There are too many of these kinds of threads to be effectively handled by a single admin. So, unless there's a way to get more admins involved, things are going to continue to pile up unless clarification is provided regarding non-admin closures. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Current cleanup of "old" cases - category
Assuming WP:FFD has separate templates and categories for its processes, Category:Non-free content review requested should probably be cleaned up as well, once all "old" cases have been closed or moved to WP:FFD. Not really a big deal but it looks like the category contains some abandoned old cases, that just need cleanup of their obsolete review tags (I'll gladly help with trivial non-admin cases). GermanJoe (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Once all requests at WP:NFCR have been closed (resolved or relisted at FFD), it should be easy to find those files. Bear in mind that some unclosed NFCR discussions have been archived due to stupid archiving bot settings, so consider consulting Special:WhatLinksHere to find any unclosed archived discussions and close those or relist the files. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Insignia of settlements in Massachusetts
A lot of image files of seals/flags/emblems of towns/cities in Massachusetts are on Wikipedia under fair use. However, Massachusetts state law states such images are in the public domain. They should be moved to the Commons. I'd do it myself, but there's tons of them and I lack the requisite tools and means to conduct such a massive undertaking by myself. 15:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC) – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This page is no longer active. I would suggest discussing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)