Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Sandbox Image Deletion

I think I need an admin here. So you can't really start to write an article, because it doesn't meet the formating standards, even if nobody has written it and you're poking along really slow. Someone will delete it within seconds of the first save. So some admins friendlily suggested that I go make my own own sandbox and plug along at my own pace. Hurray! So I do this and I start to make the article and I clumsily go along and ask people questions, and I've added a photo or two, just to mainly see how it works, I don't have the correct licence squared away yet, (there is like 30 options, each requiring you to read like a full detailed page, etc) and before I can play with it, somebody has deleted it! Can't they lay off or something, if it's only linked to my own personal sandbox? It's not graphic, or copyrighted, but I just haven't selected the right image licence. Now, if I can't use the public sandbox (it gets wiped ever few hours) and I can't use my personal sandbox (because of trolling people who like to delete stuff) like... um... where CAN I actually do what the sandbox is advertised to do? If the image is not offensive or obviously stolen, just my own pic, and only linked to USER/Sandbox and the licence isn't' perfect, can't they lay off? I mean isn't that the point of the sandbox? help! -Frankburnz (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see either the sandbox or the picture in your deleted contributions. Did you create a new account to ask this question? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest reading and understanding Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags before starting your editing so that you select, source and tag your images properly. That way your images will not get deleted. There is no sense in working on your article and formatting it using images that will be deleted any way. Any image that is uploaded to Wikipedia and not properly sourced and tagged can be a copyright violation and illegal. -Nv8200p talk 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic"

Why on earth is freely licensed content being deleted under the guise of "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic"? This is despite the fact that a) it's not always orphaned, and b) it's sometimes encyclopedic! If anything, this content should be being moved over to the Commons, not simply deleted. I first noted this on Image:GroupPhoto2007.01.14.004.JPG, which was in use on South Pole Telescope at the time. As it was a photo of the team behind the telescope, I'd argue that it was encyclopaedic. It was licensed under GFDL, so there were no licensing issues. It was deleted without any notification being placed on the talk page of the article (although a message was left on the original uploader's talk page). It was also nominated, deleted and instances removed by a single user, Nv8200p (talk · contribs). I'm assuming good faith, but it seems wrong that only one person is behind the removal of the image: the person deleting the image should be different than the person that nominated it.

I would suggest that a standard rule is introduced whereby freely licensed content with no problems other than being counted as "orphaned" and/or "unencyclopaedic" should simply be moved to the Commons, rather than discussed here. Mike Peel (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for deletion on this image was actually "Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader" although most of the nominations are "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic". There was no discussion on the image so it was deleted. The mistake was that the caption of the image was not tagged with an "ifdc" tag to let others reader know of the pending deletion and invite comment. The image has been restored and the nomination withdrawn.
In general 99% of the images nominated at WP:IFD are crap. Yes, they are free, but they are crap - images of unknown garage bands, people flipping the bird, logos of non-notable companies, lots of penis pictures, people's pets and faces of long absent users. We do not need to clog the Commons with this crap. Any good stuff that is orphaned is generally moved to the Commons after the IFD review. I oppose a "standard rule" that any freely licensed content be moved to the Commons. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm; after browsing through some of the nominations, I'm inclined to agree with you. It would be good if there was some extra checking going on, though, to make sure that images like this one don't get deleted. Would it be worth modifying the IFD pages such that they display the images, to make it easier to browse them? (Otherwise there's a whole load of links to click on...) I know that Category:Images and media for deletion exists, but that doesn't display them chronologically, which I think is needed here. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried a test at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_April_10 and I like having a thumbnail image included on the IFD. This will cause extra work on the servers no doubt. Deletion of a good image through IFD does not happen that often, maybe 1 to 2% of the time (less, if the IFD process is followed properly), and can be corrected fairly easily so I don't know if it is worth it, but I support the idea. -Nv8200p talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That looks good; it makes it much easier to scan through quickly. I seem to recall seeing a page that said not to worry about the computing resources used, but I can't find it right now. It may not look as nice when the images are deleted, but I don't think that's really an issue. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the concept. It's always been difficult to review the IFD noms and with the vast quantity of crap (last I knew there were something like 100,000+ orphaned images - and I haven't had any trouble finding plenty when I had time today), most editors who participate here are making nominations.
The problem is that at least one image in the trial is a fair use image, and it violates some rule that I should go look up to display a fair use image on a page other than the article about the subject of the image. If a user has pop-ups enabled, then they can hover over the image links and see a preview of the image without clicking through each link. ~ BigrTex 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a part of fair use that allows for the reviewing and commenting upon fair use images? That may be intended to be a different version of reviewing (i.e. reviewing the work rather than reviewing the image), but it may still apply here. But then, IANAL. An alternative would be to have two templates for nominating for deletion, one of which works as it does at present and would be intended for use with fair use images, the other of which adds the gallery. Although I would agree that that isn't as elegant / easy to use as having just one template. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image content guidelines

Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines, a proposed guideline I have created. What I would ask the people here is whether WP:IfD is suitable for the periodic lengthy discussions seen over certain images, or whether a centralised area specifically for controversial images would be helpful (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blair_Witch_Project.jpg image deleted

I cannot seem to find the nomination in the archives, and am unsure how to find the log for a deleted image, so as to revisit the subject again. Why was no mention made of the image's pending deletion noted in article discussion. It's the placeholder image for the article, so i am thinking that a serious breakdown in communication occurred along the way. Help? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of alteration

I've altered the section Listing images and media for deletion to reflect how it is vital for editors seeking to remove an image must notify not just the initial uploader (who might not be with the Project any longer) but the discussion pages of those articles using the image as well. This might seem like a tedious expansion of work for the nominator to have to notify the discussion page of the article using that image (especially if the image is present in numerous articles), but the tedium would actually reside in having every one of the users active in those articles posting to have the removal undone and ensuing discussion. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)