Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →July 30: 29...
Line 241: Line 241:
*[[:Image:Severn.300pix.jpg]] and [[:Image:UOld.severn.bridge.250pix.jpg]] -- old useless thumbs. (of [[:Image:Severn.750pix.jpg]] and [[:Image:Old.severn.bridge.800pix.jpg]], respectively) —[[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] 18:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
*[[:Image:Severn.300pix.jpg]] and [[:Image:UOld.severn.bridge.250pix.jpg]] -- old useless thumbs. (of [[:Image:Severn.750pix.jpg]] and [[:Image:Old.severn.bridge.800pix.jpg]], respectively) —[[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] 18:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


==July 30==
==July 29==
*[[:Image:Marble arch300.jpg]], orphaned useless thumb of [[:Image:Marble arch Copyright2003KaihsuTai.jpg]]. —[[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] 22:23, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
*[[:Image:Marble arch300.jpg]], orphaned useless thumb of [[:Image:Marble arch Copyright2003KaihsuTai.jpg]]. —[[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] 22:23, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


Revision as of 22:24, 29 July 2004


<Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

Shortcut

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- List of empty images -- Images for deletion/Flags

IMPORTANT note for administrators

As of 18:45, 2004 May 30 (UTC), "what links here" is broken for images. The only way to tell if an image is orphaned is to do a full-text search on the wikitext. I've been doing this on a week-old database dump. Admins: please wait on deleting things until this gets fixed. grendel|khan 18:45, 2004 May 30 (UTC)

Still broken as of now. See Image:Cathedral City hall-300px.jpg and Cathedral City, California for an example. (Editing the page causes the links to be fixed, but that's not a real solution.) grendel|khan 21:13, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

About this page

This page is only for images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For cases of (possible) fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair use. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Please consider adding the following messagetext to the top of any image page listed on this page: {{ifd}}, which shows up as:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||log={{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#time:Y F j}}|$B=

{{imbox | type = delete | class = mbox-ffd | image = none | text = '''The purpose of this file is currently being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|image use policy]]'''. The outcome of the discussion may result in the file's usage or license being changed, or possibly its [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. Please share your thoughts on the matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Files for discussion{{#if:{{{log|}}}|/{{{log}}}|}}<includeonly>#{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}</includeonly>|this file's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion|Files for discussion]] page. Feel free to edit the file description page, but the page '''must not''' be blanked and this notice '''must not''' be removed until the discussion is closed. {{#ifeq:{{{help}}}|off||---- ''<small class="plainlinks" style="line-height:1.3em;">[[Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Listing a file|How to list a file for discussion]]:<br>1. Add <code>{{[[Template:ffd|ffd]]|log={{#time:Y F j}}}}</code> to the file description page.<br>2. Add <code>&#123;{subst:Ffd2<nowiki>|1=</nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}<nowiki>|uploader= |reason= }} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{#time:Y F j}}|action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Ffd2_preload}} add a line to today's FfD].<br>3. Add <code>&#123;{ffdc<nowiki>|1=</nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}<nowiki>|log=</nowiki>{{#time:Y F j}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> in the caption on each page in the [[#filelinks|file links]].<br>4. Please consider notifying the uploader by placing <code>&#123;{subst:ffd notice<nowiki>|1=</nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> on their talk page(s).</small>''}}}}<includeonly>{{file other | [[Category:Wikipedia files for discussion]] | {{error|This template should only be used on file pages.}} }}{{NOINDEX}}</includeonly><noinclude> <!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD DOCUMENTATION/CATEGORIES/INTERWIKIS HERE --> {{documentation}} <!-- MAKE ADDITIONS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE INSTEAD, THANKS --> </noinclude> }}

If you remove an image from an article, you should list the article it used to be at, so there can be effective community review of whether the image should be deleted or not. This is necessary because the image pages do not remember the articles they used to be used on.

February 17

  • There's a lot of junk in User:Silsor/weirdmedia that needs to be deleted - I already deleted some obvious ones, like an Outlook Express executable. silsor 06:53, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

June 29

Recent changes on the page claim fair use, but I doubt so. The fact that other websites use the same image doesn't mean that it is not protected by a copyright. The user didn't get any permission from any website to use that image, that could very well be the property of a museum or a photographer.Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Resolve any pages that still link to this before listing it, things should be listed here when they are ready for deletion. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:07, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
      • Done. I have removed the links. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 19:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I will admit to adding the image without adding copyright information. However, I believe that John Crawford's defense of the fair use status of the image is suitable. If one does a Google Images search for Thales [1], one finds multiple renderings of this statue. For example, are two different instances of the photograph that is used: [2], [3]. Neither of them contains copyright information -- in fact, no photographs of this bust have copyright information. Additionally, there are other photographs of what is clearly the same statue: [4]. Finally, there is a rendering of this bust on what I believe is a Greek postage stamp: [5]. The photograph is thus clearly of a classical bust which has no copyright. Since there is no available positive copyright information about the photograph -- that is, none of the pages that use the image claim copyright -- I believe it would be overzealous to remove this image on the grounds that it might be copyrighted somewhere, by someone. Furthermore, I feel that an adequate justification for fair use has already been given. — Adam Conover † 22:52, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • You are right when you say that the bust itself is classical and has no copyright. And I agree that a photograph of the bust is a fair example of what should appear in the article. However, my concern is not about the right to show the sculpture itself. It is about the artist that took that photograph. For example, if I made a drawing or a painting of the bust, I have the choice whether to claim copyrights for my work of art. The same goes for a photograph. Therefore, no matter how unfortunate is may sound, sometimes there is a line to draw to make sure this website doesn't end up with such photos. Please understand that I'm not trying to be "overzealous". I have been asked to remove that picture from the French wikipedia for those same reasons and I only wish that precautious measures are taken when posting an image. If any user can find a picture of that bust that meets the requirements of this site, I will be more than happy. I do hope that you don't take my interventions personal.Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Do not worry, I do not take it personally whatsoever. However, my feeling is that this is the wrong place to draw the line on such images. We simply have differing viewpoints, and I was making my case above. So don't worry, there are no hard feelings. I simply feel that in the case of a small, oft-reproduced image of a classical statue with no positive copyright information, the Wikipedia benefits more from erring on the side of inclusion rather than on the side of precaution. (There is nothing to stop us from taking it down if the artist steps up and contacts us, for example.) However, if the image is eventually deleted, would the image of the stamp found in Google's image search be appropriate? AFAIK stamp images have the same public domain status as government documents. — Adam Conover † 23:38, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

July 1

  • Image:Berndavi.JPG - I don't know if this is the right place to list this. I can't find any copyright info for this image, and the user has since left WP. It looks like it was scanned from a book. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:40, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Take it up on the talk page for the article that uses it, then on copyvios, Do not list things here that are linked --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:16, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)



July 8

July 12

  • Image:Pk.jpg - Unknown source; not linked anywhere; not relevant to the article it was linked from (sexual fetishism). -- Karada 08:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Eh? This looks ok to me, and it is correctly used in Apron styles. Also, you've used the incorrect formatting for an entry on this page: please use Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Noisy 09:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The image is somewhat relevant to the extremely popular maid fetish. It is probably a copyvio though. — Chameleon My page/My talk 10:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The Apron styles article uses this image as an example, and its use on sexual fetishism was most likely vandalism. As for a copyvio, because it is used correctly in the Apron stlyes article, it is probably claimable under fair use. I wouldn't mind a better filename though.--Mr. Grinch 22:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 13

  • I accidentally clicked on (rev) within Image:Squirrel2.jpg (and subsequently rev'ed my rev). Could someone please clean this up (the original two versions of the picture are now both duplicated)? It would be nice to have some confirmation before rev, so that a slip on the thouchpad does not revert a picture when showing the older version was intended... --Markus Krötzsch 01:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 14

  • Image:Route.jpg whatever the merits of this photograph, it was uploaded by a user who created a userid to mimic the account of another user. All contributions by this person should be deleted. RickK 20:54, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not a valid reason to delete what may be a well meaning contribution. Could you supply me with the name of the user whom he/she tried to mimic? Perhaps it was simply because the name he wanted was already taken.Mr. Grinch 22:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 15

  • Image:Georgewbushsupermodel.jpg - only possible use for this I can think of is vandalism, orphaned, unknown source Guanaco 01:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Delete. RickK 04:09, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh God--DO NOT LOOK AT THIS. Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless anyone can come up with a place for this to fit in. --Mr. Grinch 15:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Milfordjaialai.jpg - This image STILL needs to be deleted because it is orphaned, It was replaced with Milfordjaialai2.jpg on Jai alai. I don't know why this request is getting deleted from this page without the image actually being deleted. So again I request that Milfordjaialai.jpg please be deleted. Misterrick, 05:25 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

July 16

  • Image:Uscapitolindaylight.jpg -- I uploaded this with the intention of using it for the front-page article, but another one was used before I got a chance. So it seems redundant now.kmccoy (talk) 03:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:National shrine of the immaculate conception.jpg -- Redundant. I typed the wrong article name... -- Sarcasticninja 06:00, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:National shrine of the immaculate conception small.jpg -- Redundant. -- Sarcasticninja 06:00, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Netscape702.jpg — a screenshot encoded as JPEG. Ew. — [User:Timwi|Timwi]] 13:34, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The issue has been resolved.—Mr. Grinch 19:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The program I used to create this screenshot, PhotoStudio, is unable to save files in a PNG format, so I used JPEG. If you would prefer a GIF or PCT file, let me know. Also, I uploaded the screenshot to replace an existing screenshot of Netscape 7.02, because all the existing screenshots were Windows-based. My version was Mac-based. By the way, I think it's heartless of you to delete a screenshot that is only one day old.Mr. Grinch 22:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Neither the program you use to create it (which is your own choice), nor the age of the image, have any relevance here. Upload the screenshot in any lossless format you want. You can upload a BMP, and someone will convert it to PNG for you. But JPEG is inacceptable for screenshots because it is lossy. (Personally, I also object to GIF unless your screenshot is guaranteed to use only 256 colours.) — Timwi 21:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll upload a BMP, which I assume someone will convert. However, I must insist that the program I use to create it is NOT my choice, as my organization only provides one program. --Mr. Grinch 13:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • At your request, I have uploaded the image as a BMP. Please convert to PNG (anyone). --Mr. Grinch 13:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 17

July 18

July 19

July 20

  • Image:Swtpclgo.png - as listed on the image page, From source website: "I want this information to be available to all and you can make copies of any of the files. You can not sell the files. Copyright 2000-2003, Michael Holley.". This is not an acceptable GFDL release. We can't guarantee that downstream forks won't sell the images. RickK 22:00, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The logo of SWTPC (long since defunct, btw) would be in the fair use category, like all other company logos (defunct or not, see for example the very non-defunct Agilent Technologies or IBM). --Wernher 23:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mark it as fair use and you're good.—Mr. Grinch 18:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

  • Image:Wales_flag_medium.png This is a medium-sized flag, obsolete by its larger and cleaner version at Image:Wales_flag_large.png. Aris Katsaris 03:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Replacing optimized small images with thumbnails of large images is a very bad policy. In this particular case (as in most cases), the replacement thumbnails have a filesize several times larger than the small image. Wikipedia is slow enough already without such gratuitous wasting of bandwidth. --Zundark 07:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagreed. The large image is much much better. Clearer, more detailed, just plain better. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Of course it's clearer and more detailed (which is why I uploaded it), but the thumbnails created from it aren't. --Zundark 14:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Yeah, they are clearer, tons clearer. It's most evident of all in the case of Wales, where the manually created thumbnail sucked big time, when the Wiki-created one was sheer perfection in clarity. Compare the image in this: Wales with the image in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mark_Williams&oldid=4847353 Aris Katsaris 14:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Try refreshing the page, or clearing your cache, or something. I think you are seeing the old one, which did indeed suck big time. The one I uploaded a month ago is pretty much indistinguishable from the thumbnailed versions, but has a much smaller filesize. --Zundark 15:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • The page at Image:Wales_flag_medium.png shows in its dates that just today you reverted that image to show to that better version which had been uploaded a month ago -- but which had then been replaced in turn by a crappy version. So it obviously *hadn't* been a problem with my cache that I was seeing it be crappy. Aris Katsaris 15:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Yes, I restored the good version as soon as I saw that you had added an IfD notice to the page, because any discussion about whether or not the image should be deleted ought to be based on that version, not on the horrible thing that was there before. --Zundark 15:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • You are wrong -- the Wiki system itself automatically creates differently-sized files as needed. Right-click on a so-called "thumbnail" and click "Properties". You'll see that it's in truth a whole different file (and thus of smaller actual size in KBs) not simply the resized version of a bigger image that you'd get by using plain HTML. Intentionally duplicate smaller versions of larger pics are deprecated for a good reason -- they are redundant because Wiki creates them as needed. Aris Katsaris 12:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I am not wrong. Right-click on a thumbnail and click "Properties". You'll see that its filesize is several times larger than that of the optimized small image. Which is what I said before. Why didn't you read what I actually said, and follow your own instructions for checking it, instead of flaming me for an idiotic claim that I never made? --Zundark 14:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I never flamed you, not once. If you pretend I did, then there's no point in keeping this going. Point remains that smaller "manually resized" versions are considered deprecated for a variety of reasons. There's also the complexity of manually maintaining two different sets of images (or three or four, versus the simplicity of letting the mechanism do the work behind the scenes. There's also "easily finding all copies of the same image". Aris Katsaris 14:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • The smaller image is not "manually resized". The point I was trying to make is that the thumbnailed images increase the required bandwidth to something like three or four times that required by the image we were using before. You no longer seem to dispute this, but it seems we will have to agree to disagree on the (un)desirability of it. --Zundark 14:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 27

July 28

July 29

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=4910112"