Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Notice of upcoming move of this page to Wikipedia:Files for discussion[edit]

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

Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge[edit]

As stated above, there has been consensus formed in a closed discussion on WP:VPPROP that was advertised on both WT:FFD and WT:NFCR, as well as renaming Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. The question now is ... how can this be accomplished? Here's the order that this probably needs to be done, considering that this change affects two other related items that need to be updated at some point to avoid "breaking things": Twinkle's functionality and AnomieBOT's tasks (since it updates and creates WP:FFD and its daily subpages):

  1. Update the instructions on WP:FFD to include a description of how to utilize this forum for tasks that were formerly handled by WP:NFCR;
  2. Mark NFCR historical, referring editors to FFD to start discussions that were formerly handled by NFCR
    • Note: During this transition, all active discussions on NFCR before it being marked historical should either remain there until they are closed or be relisted on WP:FFD in small amounts (maybe 5 maximum per day); the explanation on how to participate in NFCR discussions, as well as how to close them, should remain there until all discussions are closed. In my opinion, dumping the over 100 discussions currently on NFCR into a daily subpage of FFD makes no sense as it seems very disruptive. Once all of NFCR's discussions are closed or relisted on WP:FFD, NFCR could then be updated again to declare it officially closed (as opposed to redirecting it to FFD since NFCR has a discussion archive);
    • Update: A new opinion/option about what can be done has been added to the previous comment in bold italics; given the amount of participation on NFCR and that it is a courtesy to inform an uploader if their image is nominated for FFD, moving the nominations over provides the potential for more input on the nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Updating Twinkle to remove the NFCR option from its menus while adding an explanation of the FFD option about the function that FFD now handles that NFCR used to previously. (This will prevent further discussions from unintentionally being posted on NFCR by Twinkle);
  4. AnomieBOT's tasks would need to be updated to at least start naming new subpages as "Files for discussion" instead of "Files for deletion", as well as having AnomieBOT re-tasked to update the transclusions of the daily log pages on "Wikipedia:Files for discussion" instead of "Wikipedia:Files for deletion"; At the present time, Wikipedia:Files for discussion exists as a redirect to Wikipedia:Files for deletion, so that may help with making this transition smoother if the bot edits the target of the redirect instead of the redirect itself. (This is just my high-level understanding of what would need to be done to the bot to accommodate this change; the bot owner will have a better idea what will need to happen here);
    • yellow tickY Partly done - Need confirmation that AnomieBOT will operate as intended after November 17, especially to verify if the transcluded pages at Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions and Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Recent nominations will be updated by the bot to be named "Files for discussion" instead of "Files for deletion". If this does not resolve itself (the bot may already be programmed to take care of this at the appropriate time), the link to November 18 under "Recent nominations" may be broken due to a lack of redirect from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion". Steel1943 (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Almost immediately after the bot is updated, Twinkle will need to be updated to rename the FFD option from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion" to avoid any misplaced discussions;
  6. Instructions on FFD should now be updated to accommodate the "deletion" to "discussion" name change (especially templates used in FFD);
    • yellow tickY Partly done. This is an ongoing process as more templates and links are found/discussed, especially cases where "deletion" needs to be changed to "discussion" while explaining the merging of NFCR's former purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    At the present time, there is discussion occurring in regards to the new wording of {{Ffd}}. See below. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Wikipedia:Files for deletion should now be able to be safely moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion, as well as any applicable FFD archive links updated.

How does this look? Am I missing anything, or is any of this in the wrong order? Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    • If we're changing "files for deletion" to "files for discussion", where would that leave WP:PUF? Kelly hi! 02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kelly: In the discussion, merging PUF into this as well was mentioned, but there was no consensus to do so. (The discussion was also closed stating that this suggestion may need to be discussed in a separate discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was only half following the merge discussion at the VP, and had no preference either way so didn't comment. I tend to do everything manually and am not familiar at all with how the bots do that thing they do. Happy to defer to others with respect to this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As to the changes with Twinkle: Have the changes all ready in sandbox pages before AnomieBOT is updated. I think we should ask Anomie to make them live when his bot is ready. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. In addition, I have moved the talk page archives to "Files for discussion", and updated the archive templates at the top of this page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Given the upcoming fate of WP:NFCR, I'm not sure what should be done with {{Non-free reviewed}} or {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}}. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    First template can stay as-is; I don't think it's strictly tied to NFCR. The second will need a rewrite - "was discussed at FFD and there wasn't any consensus."Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    Templates referring to files discussed at NFCR should probably refer to NFCR in the future too as that was the forum where the files were discussed. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment shouldn't WP:PUF also be rolled up into FFD? -- (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a separate issue. There was consensus to merge NFCR into FFD but not to merge PUF into FFD. If you want to merge PUF into FFD, please propose this at WP:VPPR. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Some users use User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to list files at FFD. That script will need to be updated to refer to "discussion" subpages instead of "deletion" subpages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is necessary to update the {{oldffdfull}} template for files which were kept. The template works as long as there are redirects from "Files for deletion" but will stop working when there no longer are redirects. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    That template has experienced a number of renames of its target pages and has markup/parserfunctions for handling subpages with different names and naming conventions; a template editor may be able to change it to work under the current scheme.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    The mess in the syntax on that page suggests that moving all subpages is a good idea... --Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    I support the moving of all subpages, provided a way to accomplish this task that will not break anything. Also, if this happens, Category:Archived files for deletion discussions will probably need to be renamed to Category:Archived files for discussion discussions per WP:C2D (though there is probably a better recommended name due to the redundancy.) (Pinging Anomie since the category rename change will affect AnomieBOT's functionality.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Stefan2 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Actually, moving all of the subpages will not any longer be technically necessary to do in order to accommodate the code in {{Oldffdfull}}; I have updated the template to accommodate the change in FFD's name. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    How would a rename of the category affect User:AnomieBOT? The template is added by substituting {{subst:ffd top}}. Isn't it only necessary to update that template if we wish to rename the category? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Stefan2: I just noticed that it is part of {{Ffd top}} and not added when AnomieBOT creates the page. In fact, given this information, I actually consider that category useless and think it should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Date subpages[edit]

Shall we rename currently active subpages from "deletion" to "discussion" right away? --George Ho (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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


This template states that the file has been nominated for deletion. We should either change this to state "discussion", or create a different template for discussions about other outcomes than deletion. Note that {{fdw}} already has been updated to state "discussion". --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd change it to "The use of this file on Wikipedia is under discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy." Unless there is a better link.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Please see Template:Ffd/sandbox for an idea of what I think may work; I incorporated the example set at Template:Rfd and added Jo-Jo Eumerus' idea to add a link/mention to Wikipedia:image use policy. If it looks good, I can add it to the live template. Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"...may result in a change of this file" doesn't make sense. What do you mean? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: It was a "retouch" of the wording generated by Template:Rfd, and I agree that in its current state, it's not clear enough (so I left it as a sandbox edit.) If I had to guess what I meant, I'd say that it could be labeled free instead on non-free, removed from certain pages where it should not be (but not deleted), etc. Steel1943 (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Did a small edit to clarify "change".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest that we keep the current {{ffd}} template and create a new template for discussions where deletion is not recommended. The red border is typically only used for deletion templates such as {{tfd}} while templates for other desired outcomes such as {{tfm}} have borders in different colours. This would mean that Twinkle needs to be updated so that you can select the correct FFD template when nominating a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If we do that, then a lot of user-friendly functions that Wikipedia already offers, such as Twinkle, will have a more difficult time distinguishing "which template" to tag the file when a discussion is happening. If we have to use separate templates to tag the files when the situation is different, then in my opinion, the WP:NFCR merge should never have happened. I'd rather us improve {{Ffd}} to have it encompass all nomination without adjustments necessary or creating a new template for tagging the files. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I changed the type from "delete" to "discussion" in the sandbox. George Ho (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that the current version in the sandbox should become live. Any objections? Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    Go ahead.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have updated the template. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Stefan2, and George Ho: I recently updated the sandbox at Template:Ffd/sandbox by replacing the ombox type from "notice" to "delete" (in other words replaced the blue border and blue question mark with the red border and red exclamation point it had before the FFD rename.) I did not think that the "notice" option stood out enough to let viewers know that the discussion could lead to deletion of the file. Any thoughts on this? Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that the blue border looks strange. It makes me think of other templates such as {{Keep local}} and {{ShadowsCommons}}. Red might be better. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't like the red either. I want to change to orange or something. However, I don't see one option available, so I used "notice" instead. How about a portrait frame with orange "!" or triangle? I don't want to use the "delete" parameter,. I could use the FFD for non-deletion discussions. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FfD question[edit]

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

I'm not sure if I've done things correctly, so if I haven't could somebody please let me know what I should've done instead. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem during the re-branding phase is that some pages use the old name "Files for deletion" while other pages use the new name "Files for discussion". Most outdated links should still work thanks to redirects, but this wasn't the case with the link you used. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My worry is that AnomieBOT will overwrite these edits to fix the recent day links. I guess we'll find out in the next 24 hours... Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The "Recent nominations" section is not supposed to be edited. Magic words are used for automatically calculating the most recent dates, making manual updates unnecessary. Therefore, I would assume that no bot ever touches that section. I'm more interested in seeing what's happening with the "Old discussions" section when "files for discussion" subpages are to be added to that section. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am aware that it should not be edited, but that does not mean that the bot might check to make sure that it never does get edited, and revert the names back to "File for deletion" (which is the entire basis for my concern.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2:, per Anomie, a conversion should be made by the bot to stop creating "Files for deletion" redirects on November 17. I would have to assume that the bot will correct the "Old discussion" links on that date. Steel1943 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Stefan2: Same thing happened again at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 19 regarding another file I nominated. This time I clicked on the "Add a line to today's FfD." link in the "How to list a file for discussion" of the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for taking the time to do that. I had no idea what was going wrong, so didn't want to go messing around with any templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I think I found the above link problem with {{fdw-multi}}. The template directs the uploader to "Wikipedia files for deletion..." -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Fixed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying the uploader[edit]

The FfD template has |uploader= for notifying the editor who uploaded the file that it is being discussed. This makes perfect sense when the deletion of the file is being discussed, which was always the case when FfD was "Files for Deletion". Is notifying th uploader really necessary, however, when the discussion of a non-free file's particular usage is being discussed? Whether the non-free usage satisfies the NFCC may have nothing to do with the original uploader because non-free files are often simply copied and pasted from one article to another by editors who fail to provide nfurs or who provide inappropriate nfurs. Such files are often OK for the article(s) where they have a valid nfur, so they are not at risk of deletion as an orphan. In such cases, notifying the uploader does not seem as necessary as notifying the editor(s) who may have been adding the file to multiple articles in a manner which doesn't satisfy the NFCC. Is there a way to use the template to notify someone other than the uploader in such cases? Perhaps by adding an new parameter such as "editor1", "editor2", etc.? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd say it is still appropriate to notify the uploader in the event of a possible WP:NFCC concern, given that the uploader should have an opportunity to explain how their file may not violate NFCC usage. Also, FFD discussions usually almost always last no longer than 7 days, so it is best that the uploader know as soon as possible wag his going on with their image so that can participate in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case, I think that it is useful to notify the user who added the file to the article in which the use is disputed, but it takes a lot of time to identify that user, so notifying that user shouldn't be a mandatory step. I don't know if it is useful to notify the original uploader in every situation, but it is easier to always notify the original uploader instead of trying to guess when notifying is appropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Would it be feasible to have a "last user" parameter or something similar added to the "ffd2" template that could be used to notify the last editor to add the non-free content whose nfur is being disputed? A new template would need to be created, but it could be modeled after Template:fdw. An "article" parameter would need to be added, and it could be worded as follows:

The non-free [[:File]] you added to [[:Article]] has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~~~~

Since it might take a bit of searching to find the last editor to add the image, it could be an optional parameter for sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Often abbreviated"[edit]

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

AGF and a need for "proof"?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Nominating a really large number of files[edit]

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

Up until now, I've been tagging non-free screenshots such as File:Newsopen.png with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} because they simply do not satisfy WP:NFCC. Every file I've tagged to date (about 38) has eventually been deleted by an administrator, so I feel my assessment was correct. The uploader Strafidlo appears to be no longer active on Wikipedia, but it seems from their contribution history that they've uploaded lots of non-free logos/screenshots, such as File:Wzmy weather.JPG, since 2007. None of the screenshots I've seen so far even come close to satisfying WP:NFCC#8: they are mainly being used in "News operations" or "Newscast" sections like File:Kqca 10pm news.JPG and File:KCRA 3 News at 10 on KQCA My 58.jpg are being used in KQCA.

I think the ones which have been deleted so far are only the very tip of the iceberg. Just from looking at their contribution history, it appears there are many many more of these screenshots. Any comments on how best to proceed or whether doing so is even appropriate at all? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Marchjuly: IMHO, if you find a batch of troublesome creations by one specific editor, whether it be files, pages, or anything really, I would not consider nominating several of them "wiki hounding". If there are honest concerns with every nomination you believe has to be made in regards to another editors contributions, you are doing your best to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic by trying to remove pages, files, etc. that should not be here per established standards. If there is an issue with the editor's contributions that may need more involvement than just deletion nominations, that may be something to bring up at WP:ANI. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Steel1943. I think the uploads were made in good faith; I just don't think they are NFCC compliant. {{fdw-multi}} can handle up to 26 images at a time, but there are way, way more than 26 files which have been uploaded. Do you know if there's another way to nominate more than 26 files (perhaps even more than a 100 files) at a single time or is it more practical to break them up into groups of 26? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Sorry for having to answer your question with another question, but ... These nominations, are you planning on nominating them all in one grouped nomination, or as individual separate nominations? Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
So far I've been adding {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} to each image and then adding a single {{di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} to user talk followed by a post specifying the other images whose nfurs are being disputed like at User talk:Strafidlo#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Wlox news 2012.png. I only thought about bringing them to FFD since there are many many more such "newscast open" screenshots which have been uploaded, so maybe it would be best to try to take care of them all at once then in bits and pieces. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: If you are marking them for speedy deletion, then you are doing the process in the same manner I would (except for the manual user talk notices), so I see no issues. (I use Twinkle to nominate pages most of the time, which creates an automated individual notice for each one; either method works, though my concern with the "manually adding notices on a user talk page of additional entries" is that the section redirects to the discussions do not exist on the user talk page; however, if they are all grouped as one nomination, I see no issue there.) However, if you are eventually planning on bringing some multi-nominations to FFD directly, {{fdw-multi}} seems the best way to go to inform uploaders. (I may be able to update that template to allow more than 26 entries if needed, but I think that 26 may be the limit before the template's code starts crashing things.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles with lots of inappropriate fair use pictures[edit]

Is there some fast way to list pages with lots of non-free files for discussion? Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contains 12 non-free files while Federated state contains 15, all in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought that BetaCommand at one point had a script that compiled how many non-frees were on a page, but I have no idea where that went. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The page you need was Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files but due to the closing of the toolserver it has not been updated for over 2 years. I don't think the script has been migrated to another server yet, so I have asked the editor who posted the configuration if they can assist in getting working again. ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There is also toollabs:betacommand-dev/reports/pages with excessive nfcc.html which contains the same information but is more up to date. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Stefan. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually MZMcBride‎ has updated Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files with his bot. I don't know, yet, if he will update it to run automatically again. ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reverse of this; ie. list of non-free files that are used in a high number of articles? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC) (@Steel1943: emphasis added Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC))
@Finnusertop: Thanks for adding the clarity in that statement. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I'm not sure what you mean by this, given that non-free files require fair-use rationale, but free files do not, meaning that really could be placed anywhere and in whatever numbers without legal issues. Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A non-free being used in 20 different articles, for example, could be a sign of a problem, though not an assurance of a problem. It might be a problem if the non-free was being included because it was being including as a template (I've seen that before), or it might be included because someone has a logo for a parent organization being used on each of its child organizations without care, even if each has a proper rationale. Yes, there technically is no limit how many times a non-free can be reused, but anything more than 2, 3, or 4 times likely indicates there might be an issue to be explored. Just as articles with 10+ non-frees might also be a problem and should be evaluated by a human to make sure there's an actual problem. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that excessive use is indicative of problems. These are usually logos or pictures of deceased persons that are used without proper FURs, and in a number of cases, no possibility of FURs. I once had non-free logo removed from 79 articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In my experiences, non-free files should be used in as few articles as possible with the preferred amount of articles being 1. In my opinion, if a non-free file is used in an article in which the file does not represent the subject of the article (with the exception of screenshots), I would try to evaluate the usages vs. WP:NFCC with "a fine-toothed comb" to see if its inclusion violates any of the criteria in the slightest. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin closures[edit]

What is the recommended procedure for non-admin closures in FFD? In NFCR there weren't usually any outcomes which required admin action, making NFCR closures easier to do. For FFD though I am not certain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd say the best route would be to follow WP:NAC as a guideline until one is created specifically for FFD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

New addition to nomination statement instructions[edit]

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

Thank you for your explanation and addition to the instructions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

  • @Finnusertop: I like that idea, especially since it will help to reduce the amount of nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Flag images#Media in category "Flag images"[edit]

Not sure where or how to discuss this, but this category seems to be violating WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#9 since many of the flag images displayed are non-free. Strange thing is that the Category page is not showing up in any of the "file usage" section for the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a technical inevitability. Unless we stop categorizing non-free images or tag all categories that might contain a non-free image as NOGALLERY they are bound to display.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
C'mon now! Those do not apply since this is neither a gallery or article content. This is a Category. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NFG says "In categories that include non-free content, MediaWiki's __NOGALLERY__ code should be used to disable the display of the content while still listing it" and NFCC#9 says "To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it" so they both seem applicable to category pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added NOGALLERY. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:NFCC issue note[edit]

@Stefan2, Marchjuly, and George Ho: (as well as whoever else may be interested): I just found the existence of {{NFCC issue note}}. I've never seen this template used before. Could this template have some sort of use in WP:FFD, now that it is the noticeboard for WP:NFCR requests? (It looks as though its purpose is to be placed at the top of articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Calling @Toshio Yamaguchi:It looks completely orphaned to me, and has been for a long time apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that the idea for that template came after a number of editors objected to having a notice about non-free image problems on the article space pages, and this was created as a potential replacement that was more descriptive, but that never got used. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)