Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Untagged images

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Admrboltz (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 19 February 2006 (→or-fu-nr template: ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives


Images from Commons

Hi all. I was wondering how we should handle images that are from the Commons that only have a page here to categorize it on Wikipedia, such as Image:Lemur_huddle.jpg. Is there something I can tag it with that will prevent it from being listed again? ~MDD4696 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multipule warnings

So... dealing with Hbk3692003 (talk · contribs) and other people who repeatly upload picutres w/o copyright and source information, isnt that against Wiki rules... and eventualy lead in a block. The only other warn template I could find was {{Image no source last warning}} which just says you have 2 more days before all their images are deleted... Can we do anything about these people? --Admrboltz (T | C) 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we generaly don't block people unless they keep doing something they have been told not to. So generaly only people who keep uploading after beeing told not to are blocked, meaning people are typicaly not blocked for whatever they uploaded prior to theyr first warning. If someone keep uploading unsourced and untagged images after beeing warned however, you should report it on either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, use the later only in "slam dunk" cases where no debate is nessesary.--Sherool (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well personaly I would add {{image source}} and/or {{image copyright}} only once each, those messages include instructions to check and fix any other uploaded images too, so no need to clutter the talkpage with a dozen identical messages for each of the images, it just tend to overwhealm the user. So just make sure they know that they have at least one image that will be deleted if they don't fix things and then tag the rest of theyr problematic uploads. If they then keep uploading more unsourced images I'd suggest leaving a fairly sharp (though not hostile) message telling them that if they upload any more images without the nessesary information they will most likely be blocked. I don't think we have any handy templates for that kind of thing so you'll have to write the message yourself (point to WP:VAND and the message on the upload page itself). In this particular case I don't think any further action is required though. True he was technicaly warned in August and still uploaded such images, but it's been over a month since he uploaded anyting and he seems inactive anyway. If he comes back and keep doing it he should be nabbed right away though, but blocking an inactive user for something that happened a month ago would just be a waste of time IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No information

Wouldn't the simplest way to deal with these untagged images be to have a bot tag them all as {{no licence}}, and have another bot notify - it would save a whole lot of editor hours.--nixie 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would result in a ton of images getting wrongfully deleted as well. Quite a few of the images I've run into are perfectly fine for inclusion, but they just don't have the proper tag. ~MDD4696 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether we're getting ahead or falling behind. If manual labor is not keeping up with the uploads, then stern measures may be necessary. At commons we're shooting on sight, and it just barely keeps up with the copyvios. Stan 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point... so far it looks to me like we're falling behind, unfortunately. ~MDD4696 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea... perhaps another modification of the upload screen requiring a source? It would be a bit daunting for the n00bs, but I think it is needed... --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then you start getting a bunch of improperly tagged images, because people either guess or they just pick one so they can upload the image. ~MDD4696 04:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a decision should be required on the upload page in the license dropdown, even if the choice is something like, "I need help picking one". Currently if you don't choose anything it still uploads. - cohesion★talk 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely reasonable. The thoughtless can still upload without a real license, but at least are forced to consciously indicate that. Superm401 | Talk 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the problem is people just not realizing that one of the tags really has to be selected, it's a complicated decision, and if it seems unnecessary people will just skip it. I think if there was some warning that one wasn't selected people would (reluctantly) look through them at least. - cohesion★talk 10:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on these is not great this time, the list has been up for a few weeks and there is only about 10% done. I think the possibility of using a bot needs to be investigated, and mabye a default {{no licence}} tag should be added to uploads if information is not provided.--nixie 13:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having manually done a hundred untagged images last night, I'm all in favor. Also have the bot spam talk pages, after about 50 of those long notices on a talk page, the uploader might get the message... Stan 14:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think something needs to be done at upload to make it more obvious to people that a tag is required, as of right now if people don't pick anything there isn't even a warning about it. - cohesion★talk 19:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a line for source, it should be required (or it auto tags it with {{no source}}) and if they dont select a license tag (i dont alot because I will tag it with one that isnt listed), it should tag it with {{no license}} not the fru fru "i dont know where i got it from" tag or add the 'Image with unknown license as of DD-MM" like {{no license}} does so its easier for us admins to clean them out. --Admrboltz (T | C) 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of offering people with an "I don't know" tag is that you can then conveniently find and delete them all at the end of each day; better than trying to push uploaders into lying about the image's status. Stan 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mind the tag, but I think it needs to have the normal no source category added into it to make it simpler. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging tools?

Has anyone developed any tools for image tagging? I looked briefly at Wikipedia:Tools but didn't see anything. Perhaps I will develop one for us to use... ~MDD4696 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of one before, I think that is a good idea. --Jaranda wat's sup 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I "hacked" the "Wikify" tab user js script to make myself one click "no source" and "no license" tabs when editing images. If anyone is interested feel free to pillage my monobook.js script. Just copy everyting except the Lupin popup thing at the top to make it work (I don't have any easy to install "plugin" page). It automaticaly adds the relevant tag and save (so make any other edits before you click it) all in one click. I guess it could be even more time saving it you didn't have to open the edit page first, but this way you at least have the option to do a manual edit before you fire up the "auto-tagger". Notifying the uploader is still "manual" but I find it somewhat usefull. --Sherool (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had to redo my whole monobook.js but it seems to be working for me now with no source, no license, purge this page, the popups and the force edit summaries. --Admrboltz (T | C) 16:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use mac text clippings, and just drag them over, a low tech solution, but it works pretty well for me. It's very easy to add new ones too, and change them based on the date etc. - cohesion★talk 08:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is bored, they can check out my (still under development) image tagging tool by copying the code from my monobook.js. The addlilink, addTab, and addToolboxLink functions are required, so copy them too if you don't have them already. Just remember to refresh your own monobook.js once you've edited it.

My code adds an "Image Autotagger" link to your toolbox and a "Tag" tab to image pages. Most of it isn't functional yet, but if you are on an "Editing image:" page, you can use the Tag tab to append "No source" or "No license" automatically, the same as what Sherool's code does. You can use Image:TestImage.jpg for testing, just revert your edits when you are done.

If you do check it out and have comments or ideas, please let me know. ~MDD4696 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's Firefox only so far. Sorry! ~MDD4696 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

There are a lot of maps that look like they were made with the same tool example:Image:LocationOceania.png are these being created with some tool where the output can be gfdl'd? They are used in a lot of key articles, so I didn't want to move too quickly on most of them. Many are already on the commons and tagged correctly, but the remaining ones aren't and I don't know the source. - cohesion★talk 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer, I will post if here in case other people come across the issue, they are from a PDF the world fact book came out with apparently, so I am tagging them Template:PD-USGov-CIA-WF - cohesion★talk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor admin edit

Can an admin please edit Image:Logo.gif, Image:Logo.jpg, and Image:Logo.png to include the tag {{PD-user|Janke}}? I'll assume someone will do that and go ahead and remove it from the list now. Thanks :D - cohesion★talk 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done for tagging, dont know what list its in, thats up to you :) --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanky very mush sir :) - cohesion★talk 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

I've been trying to help out with this project but got some questions.

What should you do when you encounted a fair use poster/cover which is high resolution? Plus, how can you easily check that. Just look at the size of the image in question?

Good question... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't spend time on it right now. First, we don't have an agreed number specifying what "low resolution" is supposed to mean (some seem to think 100x100, clearly too small), and second, once images are tagged, it is easy to go into fair use categories and sort images by size, address them all at once. Stan 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. That's going to be a nice project btw. Garion1000 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you tag an image with {{or-fu-nr|~~~~~}} since it's obviously copyrighted and not in use. Should you then still contact the original uploader? Garion1000 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont, mainly because its not used in any articles. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends - sometimes images appear orphaned because the article using them has been vandalized (happened to one of my images just today). If I can identify what it's supposed to illustrate (such as when the article is linked from the desc page), I go look at it to see what's up. Stan 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. Tnx for the responses. Back to some more tagging. Garion1000 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging rate

Hi all. I've extrapolated a completion date based on how many images we've tagged since this round of tagging started. Of course, I expect things to move a little bit faster as more people join the project, but at the current rate, we will have completed tagging all 38318 images on July 13, 2006. That's a ways off.

I'm currently working on a specialized tool to make things go faster, but development on it will likely be slow (as in, a beta in a few weeks). In any case, does anybody have ideas to get this project moving faster? ~MDD4696 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user:Admrboltz/monobook.js has a No copyright button and a no source button as well as an IFD button, it only does the image, it doesnt notify the uploader thats still manual but it helps.
Based on the most recent data, the projected completion date has moved up to June 25, 2006. ~MDD4696 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great script. I hope you don't mind me using it. Superm401 - Talk 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's really bad is that we're probably not keeping up with the creation of new untagged images at this rate. Perhaps this needs to get more prominent on the community portal. Also, at the risk of getting my wrist slapped, I've been summarily executing the worst images (unused & no description & contributor gone), which speeds things up. Stan 01:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also speedy anything that meets the criteria for speedy deleting images. A notice on the recent changes page header might not hurt.--nixie 03:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:no license notified

Looks like the {{no license notified}} usage has been changed so that needs to be reflected here. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Templates for deletion

Some tags have been listed on templates for deletion which may be of interest. The templates listed are Template:PD-AUGov, Template:Webimage, Template:PD-USGov-Congress-USBG, Template:QualificationsandCurriculumAuthorityCopyright, Template:LandRegistryCopyright, Template:TeacherTrainingAuthorityCopyright, Template:Ordnance Survey Copyright, Template:UNPhotoArchive, Template:PD-old-50. Template:CanadaCopyright is waiting to be orphaned. Does anyone involved in image tagging ever look at templates for deletion? Secretlondon 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the "x for deletion" pages make my eyes bleed, so I generally avoid. :-) Not so important anyway, the great majority of the untagged images I see are speedy-delete orphans or unsourced not-quite-so-speedy deletes. Stan 06:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to check the history

When you find an untagged image, you might want to check the article history: maybe the uploader provided a suitable licence but the licence has been deleted by a vandal. It would have been a shame if Image:How e-mail works.png had been deleted. Gdr 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term plan

Even while this is going on, I'm sure new untagged images are piling up, and so I'm thinking we need a strategy that is more of a steady process. For instance, a bot could go through frequently and and put each untagged image into some sort of a "untagged" category for human review. This could also catch blanked existing images that Gdr mentions, so one would want it in addition to any of the upload changes suggested a while back. Stan 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that my reply kind of goes off on a tangent) I think that in general we have a huge problem with regards to images that are either untagged or tagged with templates that don't describe the copyright/license status of the image, or are depreciated. I wonder whether there's any benefit in setting up some sort of project or something that attempts to ensure that all images are tagged with a valid, encouraged template. Right now WP:UI is ensuring that all untagged images as of last December are getting tagged. However, some of the contributors continue to tag images with depreciated templates such as {{fairuse}} or dubious templates such as {{coat of arms}}, which just moves the problem around, and doesn't eliminate it. There isn't any project that's trying to re-tag all images tagged with, say, {{coat of arms}} with a valid template (or delete them), or to ensure that all current uploads are tagged with a template that's not depreciated or dubious, or to ensure that people don't re-tag existing images with dubious templates. Maybe having some sort of bot that checks whether an image has been tagged with a template in WP:ICT#Public_domain, WP:ICT#Free_licenses, or WP:ICT#Fair_use might be a start. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with changing the script we're using now to put images in a category instead of on pages as they are now. It's also appropriate to include images tagged with non-copyright tags. However, this won't solve the problem of us being overwhelmed by untagged images. Superm401 - Talk 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can get an indication of the number of new untagged images being added by looking at [1]. The current rate seems to be about 15 per hour, or about 1000 over a three day period. Luckily many of these get caught and fixed before they hang around for too long. The advantage of dealing with the newest images is that you may be able to properly instruct uploaders before they continue to upload hundereds more untagged/copyright infringing images. --Martyman-(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me that strongly suggests a daily category, a la the no-source images. Psychologically I suspect that people will work harder if doing "just a few more" empties the category, vs making a tiny dent, plus the list of dated subcategories clearly when things start to fall behind. Stan 13:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some food for thought. It's a list of tags used on images uploaded between about 24 and about 48 hours ago (tagging status as of last night). There were almost 2,000 uploads in total, but some were duplicates or were speedied. Anyway, there were about 200 untagged images uploaded, so assuming this is typical and based on the current progress rate, keeping up doesn't look like a problem. It looks like there might be a problem that's at least as big with uploaders tagging images incorrectly (e.g. there's a lot of junk tagged with {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, I find it hard to believe that 10% of the images on Wikipedia are described by {{Promotional}} and every reason I saw in a {{PD-because}} tag was incorrect), but that's not a problem we strictly need to worry about here. Anyway, here's the list in case anyone's interested:

Type of licence Associated tags Count
GFDL ({{GDFL}}, {{GFDL-self}}, {{GFDL}}) 160
Creative commons licenses {{cc-by-2.0-map-of}}, {{cc-by-2.5}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} 38
Generic any-purpose copyright (a lot of which appear to be incorrectly tagged) {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, {{NoRightsReserved}} 200
Other free licences {{FAL}}, {{GPL}}, {{CrownCopyright}}, {{Sejm}} 4
Self-made public domain images {{PD-self}} 96
U.S. Government public domain images 49
Depreciated public domain tags {{PD}} 24
Other public domain 56
Promotional images {{Promotional}} 188
Album covers {{albumcover}} 90
Logos primarily {{logo}} 164
TV and film screenshots {{film-screenshot}}, {{tv-screenshot}} 156
Video game screenshots {{game-screenshot}} 59
Depreciated fair use tags {{fair use}}, {{fairuse}} 5
Other fair use tags 247
Unknown copyright status tags {{Coat of arms}}, {{FOTWpic}} 16
Wikimedia copyright {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} 1
Permission-only {{AllRightsReserved}}, {{Copyrighted}} 3
Listed for deletion {{db}}, {{ifd}}, {{imagevio}}, {{redundant}} 9
No license {{no license}}, {{no licence}} 87
No source {{no source}} 42
Orphaned fair use {{or-fu}} 3
Uploader unsure {{Don't know}}, {{Don't know 2}}, {{Some web site 2}} 55
Untagged 191

JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Since the current pile of untagged images is about a six-month accumulation (right?), at 200/day that adds up to 36,000, or pretty close to the starting pile size, suggesting the rate hasn't changed much. To put it another way, if this initiative manages to finish the current pile in four months, there will be a new pile of 24,000 untagged images accumulated in the meantime. That's why I think we need to do something semi-automatic to truncate the incoming stream. Stan 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good argument for doing so. Based on your arithmetic, it sounds like we'll continue to be several months behind for a very long time at this rate. Furthermore, I think that it's good to catch untagged images as soon as possible, before the uploader's been gone for several months. Anyone have thoughts as to how to best deal with the new untagged images? JYolkowski // talk 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also my comment below (shortly). JYolkowski // talk 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Autotagger (Firefox only)

I've created a brief demonstration of my Image Autotagger tool if anyone would like to preview it. The code is available from my monobook.js, but I've got to polish it a bit, make it a little more flexible, and of course write documentation. You can test the Fast Tagger tab on Image:TestImage.jpg.

Features:

  • Image Autotagger - A popup tool window for many images
    • Rapidly tag a list of images
    • Select license from a drop-down and have it inserted automatically
    • Automatic edit summaries
    • (To do) Automatically notify uploader
  • Fast Tagger - A popup "tag" tab for one image
    • Tag an image in just one click
    • Quickly tag an image with No License, No Source, or IFD.
    • Automatic, overridable edit summary

I'd really appreciate any comments or ideas! ~MDD4696 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this a try and couldn't figure out how to use it. How do you let it know which image you want to tag? Also it has a few layout issues in Firefox for me. --Martyman-(talk) 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should've put more of an explanation up, because it seems that YouTube takes a while to "process" videos you upload. Currently, you must use a list of images as your starting point. For example, type User:Mdd4696/Sandbox into the box in the upper right, and then click "Load". This loads a list of images for you to tag (you can also used the Wikipedia:Untagged Images lists, like Wikipedia:Untagged images/2005dec13-2). Double click on any of the images in the list to load it and edit it. You can automatically insert a tag from the drop-downs, or you can edit by hand. Does that help Martyman? I'll look into making it more intuitive from the get-go. Also, could you take a screenshot and post it at ImageShack (free, no registration)? ~MDD4696 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for that, that makes much more sense. I will give it another try. I have uploaded a screenshot at [2]. For anyone interested I just added the follow text to my monobook.js to include Mdd4696's javascript, once theis is up and running properly it would be nice if it could have it's own page that could be included like this. --Martyman-(talk) 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdd4696/monobook.js' 
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Alright, if anyone's interesting, the Image Autotagger now has a page: User:Mdd4696/Image Autotagger. ~MDD4696 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the problem before it starts

Let's try to stop the problem of untagged images before it starts and keep images out of the mass dumping of images by getting them tagged early. Try to watch the upload log and look for untagged images. If you can't determine the tag or other information leave one of the no source or no copyright status tags and alert the user. Thanks. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very inefficient though - as the above statistics show, only one in 10 of new uploads are untagged, and the other 9 clicks on an image are wasted time. Stan 13:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not nessesarily, just look for the ones with a blank upload summary, those will at least not have any source info (though they might be albumcovers and such), also when you find someone who uploads blank images check theyr contributions list, chances are they have several other such images to theyr name as well. One solution would probably be to have a bot running on the toolserver, simmilar to what the anti-vandalism people have, that will inspect all new uploads and automaticaly tag images with no license template and notify the uploader within minutes of the file beeing uploaded. However that won't solve the problem with people playing the "license rulette", there are probably at last as many mistagged images as there are untagged ones, so it would not hurt to have humans sanity check the upload log, the upload rate is not that huge, so with a handfull of people and a bit coordination it should be doable, if a bit boring (I must confess I check it too rarely myself). --Sherool (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also easier to find untagged images if you watch images uploaded by newbies. ~MDD4696 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an experiment, I've created User:JYolkowski/recent untagged images and I'll update it regularly for the next little while until I see whether there's any value in this or not. Anyone who'd like to help tag the images listed there is welcome to do so. Here's what I do:
  • Select the "edit" link next to each of the links (I open each link in a new tab on my browser).
  • Add {{subst:nls}} to each page, unless it's obvious what the licence should be. This template transcludes {{Uploader did not tag image}} and {{No licence}}.
  • Remove the links from the page when done.
Any comments are welcome. P.S. If someone who has toolserver access wanted to write something to list recent untagged images, that would be even better. JYolkowski // talk 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what Wikisense/Untagged Images does? I found it higher up on this page. Superm401 - Talk 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool... I did check that out before, but it seemed a lot less functional last time I did. At any rate, that seems to now have everything I'm interested in, so I'm doing to discontinue updating the page I mentioned above. JYolkowski // talk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JYolkowski, that's great. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 04:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the untagged images tool, and it seemed effective - I cleared a five-hour chunk of 02-13 uploads. Downside is that tool's db is delayed, so you have to wait a while to see the list change. It's remarkable how many people are uploading images as one of their first WP edits, even before they get a welcome message, and how many don't actually use the image on any page after uploading it... Stan 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new problem

On the project page there is discussion of image pages that are only links to images on the commons Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Day (1881).jpg This is actually very common, and I think it happens for every image on the commons maybe. When you click on any image on en you go to an en page saying the image is on the commons, but there are no gfdl tags etc. There are *a lot* of images that are like this. Anyway, I don't really know what is going on and would like someone to explain it :) Is the parser not seeing that they are tagged, or are they pages that really should be deleted? - cohesion★talk 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most images that are on commons get deleted here, just tag them for speedy or delete them --Jaranda wat's sup 08:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In most cases, there is no image page here and the text is just imported from commons; this is not a problem for UI. The problem is when there is an empty image page here, possibly with a duplicate image. The pages without any image should be deleted as I2; those duplicated on commons should be tagged as {{NowCommons}}, not speedied. Superm401 - Talk 19:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or-fu-nr template

Possibly a stupid question, but what happened to {{or-fu-nr}}? Was the lack of a date format an issue? Dethomas 23:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? I still use the template. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind... just used it... use {{orfud}}Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images&oldid=40242268"