MediaWiki talk:Bad image list

Description The images listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list are prohibited by technical means from being displayed inline on pages other than the ones it is specifically allowed on. Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where blocks and protections are impractical. The list includes a mechanism to allow posting of listed images to specific pages. Instructions Making requests - Requests for additions, removals, or exceptions may be made on this page. Any administrator can make changes to the list. If there is no response to the request after a reasonable time consider making a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. Posting to the list - The format is as follows: Only list items (lines starting with "*") are considered. The first link on a line must be the link to the high-risk image. It is recommended that you use an initial colon in this link, so people can view this page without seeing all the restricted images. Any subsequent links on the same line are exceptions, i.e. articles where that image is allowed to be displayed inline. Text outside of links is ignored and can be used for comments. Piped links cannot be used. Please check the spelling of potential duplicate images before removing. Image talk page post - Place {{Badimage}} on the image talk page. This will advise users how to request that the image to be allowed on articles (that is, to expand the except list for it). Removal from the list - When removing deleted images from the list, please double-check that the relevant image talk page has been deleted as well.

Usage of Gabe_Newell_GDC_2010.jpg

Could we have an exception to use Gabe_Newell_GDC_2010.jpg on no:Gabe Newell? Working on improving all of the Valve related articles on the norwegian Wiki Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the bad image list only works on this project and doesn't affect other wikis. Nakon 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Image added to page - not blocked there. Skier Dude (talk 03:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article split.

Due to splitting. The image File:Labelled flaccid penis.jpg has been moved to Human Penis. It should be now be allowed there. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wiki-pegging.png

Hello. Could an admin please approve this image for use in the Anal sex article? Thanks very much.--TyrS (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Fellatio gay.jpg

Hello. Could an admin please approve the use of a small version of this image at Fellatio. Thanks very much.--TyrS (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Female buttock.jpg

This probably should be added in (NSFW!). Vandals have transcluded it onto my user pages in the past, and I have seen it also used as the "unblock reason" in the unblock template. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is one diff [1]. I cannot find the diff for the one used in the unblock template right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad > Shock?

Suggesting a renaming from "Bad image list" to "Shock image list", The images are not bad. Many are educational, some are less then attractive. All have a stronger then normal potential to be abused by vandals for their shock value. Jeepday (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming this page requires a developer as it would require changes in the code. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14281 for an open request that has garnered very little attention. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Any of the suggested renames there would be appropriate. Withdrawing my name suggestion and supporting community consensus for anything that does not include "Bad". Jeepday (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference what we call this page as long as its desired effect (to prevent the images being sed for vandalism) is achieved, which it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur, like it says on the bugzilla page, the current name is poor from a WP:NPOV perspective. From a technical perspective it does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) at 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why this isn't named MediaWiki:Image blacklist, similar to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Wouldn't that be better? Cheers, theFace 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the title predates those pages, but I don't know that for certain. Also, this isn't a blacklist in the sense used by those pages as it doesn't prevent the use of the images. It merely restricts the use of the images on it to explicitly listed pages. So I don't think "MediaWiki:Image blacklist would be a good title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "Image greylist" (by analogy with Greylisting) would be a reasonable alternative. Feezo (Talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Addendum — it could also be called "Restricted images", since that's what the category is called. Feezo (Talk) 10:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good ideas, Feezo! How about renaming this to MediaWiki:Restricted files, and renaming Category:Restricted images to Category:Restricted files? See also Template talk:Restricted use. Cheers, theFace 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Urinate.jpg

{{editprotected}} This file was deleted last week because the uploader failed to prove where it came from. It was added to Urination on 25 October 2006 by the uploader, and removed from it on 2 December 2006. It never seems to have been put on commons. Cheers, theFace 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Creampie drawing 1.svg

Please add this, with an exception for Creampie (sexual act) (warning: NSFW). Thanks. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg

This image appears to blocked from the article that describes it since the page was moved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Exception added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be working just yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could be the database lag. Give it an hour or two and maybe try a dummy edit to the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Move request

{{editprotected}} Following discussion, I would like to propose, {{movenotice|MediaWiki:Restricted files}}, that this page be moved to MediaWiki:Restricted files. I think this is the most logical title, since it includes video content as well as images. Feezo (Talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• meh. I don't think that the upheaval required to move the page is worth it. It needs a developer to make changes to the MediaWiki code to implement it, so that the functionality is not lost (including during the time between the change being implemented and all the caches updating. Depending how hardcoded the current name is (I have no idea) this could be as simple as changing one line of code, or in the worst case scenario possibly hundreds of lines of code. Also the likelihood of a developer actually making the effort to make the change is low, given how long more significant bugs have been outstanding is very low. While I don't object to the new name, I just don't think changing it will happen tbh. I'm not going to put the move notice on the interface page as I don't know if it will break anything (And I don't particularly want to find out!). Thryduulf (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It seems unlikely that just using a template would break the page — looking at the history, it seems the header text has been modified a number of times — I don't think it has to be in a strict format. You're right, though, a developer would need to modify the Bad Image List extension, and since it's a fairly trivial issue I will withdraw the edit request for now. Feezo (Talk) 05:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Once again, I will voice my support of a page move. As noted at Bugzilla, ID#14281, the most correct name would probably be MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list, since there may be more than just image files involved. In looking through all the discussions/arguments about this issue, there does appear to be a consensus against the present name. From the viewpoint of the developers, the problem is that there is no evident consensus for any certain new name for the list. As they've noted, there have been several suggestions, so no one particular name has risen to the "height" of consensus.

Also, again as noted at Bug #14281...

As a note, the name is used on all mediawiki installs, it is not something that is going to be made a config option, so consensus at wikipedia (on the off chance you actually get it) does not necessarily imply it will be changed.

— Bawolff 2011-02-13 05:49:20 UTC– Comment 21

I have been fighting this battle for nearly a year, and there are others who've been fighting it even longer. It is hard for me to conceive why such a change as this should be so very difficult to implement. The challenges include, but not in any specific order nor necessarily limited to:

1. Coming to consensus on one particular name,
2. Convincing the "powers that be" that enough of us care about the need for a name change,
3. Defining the actual amount of work from the developer's POV (If it involves changing one line of code and 30 seconds of time, then what's the holdup? On the other hand, if this change will involve subtle and intricate code modifications that will take an hour or more to implement, then that is a significant consideration when prioritizing this change. Nobody seems to know the answer to this.), and
4. Securing a target date for completion.

I did sense early last year when I became involved with this issue that it would be an uphill climb. I never realized that it would be like fitting a spaceship to go to the star Sirius.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• PS. Thank heavens I take Lisinopril!>)

In regards to how much work it would be to change. Changing the name involves changing one line of includes/ImageFunctions.php (2 if you count a comment), ~2 lines in some of the i18n maintenance scripts, and a bunch of lines in the i18n files (which is trivial with a script). The amount of work is insignificant. It really is a Bikeshed issue. It would cause a minor amount of disruption though since mediawiki:Bad image list would stop working in favour of the new name [On all mediawiki installs, not just enwikipedia, not even just wikimedia wikis]. The reason you're probably not getting very much response to this is that the reasons presented (that the current name is politically incorrect) aren't very convincing. A very mildly politically incorrect message name (which is only politically incorrect on a subset of sites using mediawiki), that is not advertised to normal readers, is really not something to get worked up about. Heck arguing that it should be changed to be consistent with the convention of using dashes instead of spaces in message names would probably be slightly more convincing (although not much more). [Just to clarify, the preceding is just my personal opinion. Others who commented on the bug might have different opinions on the issue]. Bawolff (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you, Bawolff, for resolving #3 above. Also, I hope you don't mind that I quoted you above. You raised an argument that I have not read in any of the discussions, archived or active, on this issue, and I felt that it needed to be heard. I respect your feeling that this issue is trivial. When I look into the archives, when I check the date that craleigh318 opened the bug (2008-05-27), when I count the growing number of editors who have given an opinion on this matter, I am compelled to disagree. I guess I did read a discussion or two about the name being "politically incorrect", but few have really cared about that. The main concern over the last three years does not seem to me to be that the "bad" is politically incorrect, but that it is incorrect, period. These media are no more "bad" than, say, a nail gun is bad because some vandal puts somebody's eye out with it. (Nor are these media "blacklisted", but their usage is only "restricted".) You indicate that in your eyes there is not very much response to this issue. You will want to look again to the archives and note that response to this issue over the last three years has been quite strong. No, there has never been consensus as to a new name; there has however been a strong consensus against the present name, as well as the prevailing thought that just about any other name (that does not include the word "blacklist" in any way, shape or form) would be a definite improvement over the present name. At 14281, you wrote that you "certainly don't" care what this page is called. Over the past three years, I and many other editors have shown that we do care, that we would like to see this page renamed using a correct descriptor. Nearly a year ago, if I could have, I would have renamed this page. And there are some editors who would have renamed this page three years ago if they could have. I can't help but wonder how many different editors over what period of time does it take to raise this from trivial to necessary?  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Since when does Wikipedia pass such ridiculous value judgments on official pages? IMO, pages should be titled with their purpose, a criteria which "restricted files" achieves. I'm pretty sure there'd be a big furor if I made a Category:Bad Books and added Flowers for Algernon to it. Let's push for this. Attract more attention, reach consensus and petition for a name change. DubiousIrony ^yell 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Fluorideactionnetwork-logo.png

This File:Fluorideactionnetwork-logo.png is on the list, but I see nothing wrong with it. It was added here. Ariel. (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing the context, I can only guess that it was added to the list to enforce the non-free content policy. You would need to ask MuZemike if you wanted an explanation or removal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This image was being rapidly spammed all over the place by a vandal on open proxies, part of a pattern of other vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Prince Albert piercing.jpg and File:Prince Albert Piercing.jpg

The Prince Albert Piercing page was moved to Prince Albert (genital piercing). Since the exceptions here were not updated, the images are not showing up on the appropriate page anymore. Could a moderator modify the exception list to refer to the new page? Qvdm (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Scary clown.jpg

The image File:Scary clown.jpg is offensive and causes anxiety to suffers of coulrophobia, and as such, should be removed from the article discussing the said phobia, as I myself am I sufferer of coulrophobia, I had to cover the image with my hand to read the article, so I would like for this offensive image to be removed from the article, thank you. The offensiveness of this image has been discussed in the said article's talk page, but to no avail... Greg The Webmaster (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right venue. If you want the picture gone from the article, get consensus at Talk:Coulrophobia. --Conti|✉ 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Overreach

It was my understanding that the bad image list was intended for offensive images that could cause trouble if used for vandalism, at least according to Tim Starling's comments introducing the feature. But over the past several months, it looks like images have been put on the list that don't seem offensive by any stretch of the imagination:

• File:Ainsley Harriott.jpg
• File:Gabe Newell GDC 2010.jpg
• File:Reginald Fils-Aime.jpg
• File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg

I don't understand the reasoning here. If the intention is to stop copycat vandals adding the same image everywhere, the edit filter is that way. Remember the bad image list doesn't stop edits from getting through; it only stops the images themselves from being rendered inline. The average reader is going to be just as confused whether they see a grinning TV chef or the linked text "File:Ainsley Harriott.jpg" in some random article, and it's going to bamboozle the good-faith contributor trying to add the picture to a relevant article months later (the "Gabe Newell GDC 2010" one was added months ago). These images should be removed, and the above kept in mind. Fran Rogers (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the policy that says it's only for offensive images? It's used to prevent the use of images on the list for vandalism. I don't know how an edit filter could be concocted to have the same effect, but I certainly couldn't write one from scratch in less time than it takes me to type the name of the file and save this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The bad image list does nothing to prevent vandalism. As I mentioned above, all it does is prevent selected images from rendering inline and replace them with a link, thus mitigating the specific problem of potentially offensive/shocking images popping up in front of visitors before they can be reverted. If ongoing, repeated vandalism with an image is going on and the image is added to this list, the edits adding these images are still going to get through and stick around until somebody finds them. This is why adding anything other than offensive images here basically accomplishes nothing. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Circumcised_penis_labelled.jpg

• File:Circumcised_penis_labelled.jpg except on Human penis. A vandal (86.134.22.163) put this in ten different templates transcluded on 746 pages (counting repeats, if any). The consequence for the vandal? A 72-hour block. That's less than 6 minutes per article. Tomorrow at 17:16, the vandal will be back at it. 68.9.94.136 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   Done Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please change the filename to File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg. I suspect that the '_' characters are causing SoxBot to edit war with itself. Besides, the rest of the link text has spaces instead of low lines. 68.9.94.136 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Trollface.png

Could File:Trollface.png be added to the blacklist? It is commonly used in 4chan attacks when they target video games. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bukkake images

• File:Wikibukkake.png (NSFW)
  • The exception is incorrect; Bukkake is a disambiguation page. Bukkake (sex act) is the correct article.
• File:Wikibukkake new.png (also NSFW)
  • Could someone please add this, with an exception for Bukkake (sex act)? Thanks!

--Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 22:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)