Category talk:Wikipedia files with unknown source

Stupid question (maybe)

What does it take for an image to no longer be considered to have "no source". Is it enough to add a compatable copyright tag (like {{coatofarms}} or {{film-screenshot}}, or do we need to know exactly where and how the image was obtained for it no longer to be eligable for speedy deletion under Critera 4 (tagged as no source for more than 7 days)? Just curious because a lot of images here could probably be re-tagged under some form of "fair use", but finding the exact source is near impossible. Just wondering if I should bother re-tagging images listed here or just nominate anyting that's been tagged for more than 7 days for speedy almost regardles? --Sherool 16:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There are no stupid questions :D. If you know the source of the image, then just re-tag and list the source where it came from. While the exact source is very good, something that looks similar to it can be ok. But if there are some images that you cannot retag or cannot find the source for, just put them up for speedy deletion. Zach (Sound Off) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure that exactly answers it, at least, it wasn't clear. I am not sure. I have been removing no source if it is something obviously a screenshot / logo or the like. Maybe this is incorrect but it seems to make sense to me. I've been adding "adding copryight tag -- removing no source -- if I shouldn't have removed no source please notify me". It seems to me that the logo itself is fairuse in any form and that no source has exclusive right to it.... however, I don't know about copyright law and it might not be intuitive to me. gren グレン 20:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind. You can't claim fair use without a source, nor can something be cc-by or GFDL. You may be able to retag something PD with no source, but pretty much everything else inherently requires one. Superm401 | Talk 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So if someome upload the Windows logo but doesn't say where he got it from it can't be fair use? Is there no room for "common sense" in this I mean a logo is a logo, does it matter if it was a screenshot from windows, downloaded from a online newspater or taken off the Windows site? I mean sure, you have to say who's logo it is, but beyond that? What about screenshots, I mean if I say what game or movie it's from does it matter if the uploader did the screen capture himself or if it was downloaded from a gaming site or photographed off the screen? --Sherool 23:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's the Windows logo the source is obviously some Microsoft publication. That's close enough. I would just add that myself if I saw it with a no-source tag. If it's a a screenshot, it does matter who takes it. If it's the uploader, the only copyright issue is whether it's a fair use of the game's copyright. Otherwise, we have to worry about whether it's a fair use of the web-site's copyright in the (possibly illegal) deriviative work. Superm401 | Talk 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you can claim fair use with out a source. If our use of the image is fair use, it does not require the permission of the copyright holder, so it does not matter if we know the source or not. I cannot find any codified law or case law that says you have to know the copyright holder to claim fair use. If someone knows of some, please point me in that direction. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria requires a source, regardless of the legal requirements. See Jimbo's new WP:CSD policy additions (I4).--Duk 03:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I read the last WP:CSD done by Jimbo Wales and there is no requirement that Wikipedia requires a source. Images with unknown source can be speedy deleted but if their is a good fair use claim we should be able to use the image, otherwise, every album cover, DVD cover, poster, etc. should be deleted because we are not 100% sure who the copyright holder; maybe it's the distributor, maybe it's a major studio or maybe it's a smaller production company. The proper reasearch has not been done. --13:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you can't. Fair use criteria consider how much of an overall work is copied, the effect of the infringement on the overall work's value, and what type of work the original was. Wikipedia can not know any of that if no source is provided. Superm401 | Talk 12:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Still, the source is not a requirement, it just makes using the image under fair use a riskier proposition. I believe tagging the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act disclaimer on the image could help --Nv8200p (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

We can, because we can assume. The law states that material published before 19XX needed to have copyrights regranted yearly, no? And that material published in the U.S. before 192X (?) is free from copyright restrictions. So a photo from the 1920s or earlier = likely to be PD. And for photos from the 1940s and 1950s goes following: If it is of rather low quality, is fairly unknown (e.g. not of professional photo of King Kong), I assume it has little commercial value for the owner by itself (which is the main criteria for fair use), which would make it eligible for fair use. Fred-Chess 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just trying to figure out what consitutes a source. Is it enough for me to add "This is a screenshot from a Transformers episode" for example, or do we need the actual uploader to describe in detail how he obtained the picture. If it's the later I fear a lot if not most uploaders have misunderstood the rules, most people when asked about the source of theyr pictures just say "it's a screenshot from [whatever]", or "it's the cover of [some album]". If that's not enough we need to seriously clearify the rules for sourcing of images, and possebly delete about 99% of the stuff tagged as fair use screesnhots, posters and covers at the moment... --Sherool 10:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously ridiculous to require everything to have a source, and just creating additional work for us who have to re-upload the logos, coat of arms, etc. Fred-Chess 21:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, this also can go towards WP:CITE. If we have to cite key information in articles, we should have to cite where the photos we use came from. Zach (Sound Off) 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand and I'm going to start putting sources with everything, even generic album covers. However, my main worry is that a lot of album covers / logos / things that are obviously fair use no matter their source will get deleted because they have no source. I think a policy of something like any of these types uploaded after Septmeber 25 with no source will be deleted. Buy, I think we need time to source or re-upload many of the old fair use images rather than have them deleted. gren グレン 06:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has seven days from when the no-source template is added. Superm401 | Talk 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Subcategory images with notified uploaders

We should make a subcategory for images whose uploaders had been notified of their images status. There should be a corresponding {{no source notified}}. All uploaders should have been notified when the tag was placed but not all were. Uploaders deserve fair warning, even if it's just a request that they tag their images. Non-admins like me can go through the main category, notify uploaders, and then change the template. It could be a corrollary of the untagged images project. What do people, especially admins (because of their deletion powers), think? Superm401 | Talk 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you want to do that. THe depressing thing is that, as you said, this was already supposed to have happened. But doing it again can't hurt. (Although, I will continue deleting images in the main category until the warned category has something in it, though.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Does this "no source - notified" category exist yet? And what about having subcategories for date notified? Then it would be very simple for the speedy deleters to deal with the images in the categories for > 7 days ago. -- LiniShu 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete candidates

These images of Hulk Hogan were uploaded by User:Iamsk3 in July 2005. They are all copyrighted.

• Image:1hogan1979.jpg, Image:1hoganawa.jpg, Image:1hoganjapan.jpg, Image:1hogan1989.jpg, Image:1hoganbundy.jpg, Image:1hoganwcw.jpg, Image:1hoganhhh.jpg, Image:1hoganfamily.jpg, Image:1mramerica.jpg, Image:1hoganandre.jpg, Image:1hoganrip.jpg, Image:1hoganbundy.jpg.

//Fred-Chess 11:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I got them all. If not, just let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No source = Uncertain copyright status?

This is certainly not true. Many old images that currently have no source are still Public Domain. To that end, I am working my way through the images in this category, removing the "no source" tag and adding PD to old images that are free to use due to age and unlikely to have a copyright holder. // Fred-Chess 11:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In almost all cases it is. I'm suspicious, (but will not necessarily remove) a PD claim that doesn't have a source. The source is the only way we can verify the copyright. Superm401 | Talk 12:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a template, but I am not sure what it is named, but you can tag the image that says it could be in the public domain, but we are not sure yet. My suggestion is tag it with that and then once we are done here, we just go through the PD images and take care of them. Zach (Sound Off) 13:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't! Tags are supposed to be unequivocally accurate. If you're not sure, don't tag it. Superm401 | Talk 15:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is {{fairold}}. // Fred-Chess 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know the source, it's not fair use. {{Fairold}} is not an exception to that. Superm401 | Talk 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So only use {{Fairold}} when we have a source but the image may/not be in the public domain? Zach (Sound Off) 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, for example, you may know who created the image and perhaps even when, but not when the image is published, which makes a difference. Superm401 | Talk 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To a degree you can almost guarantee that certain images are not copyrighted despite the fact that there are no sources. Take Image:Gogh4.jpg for example. Assume we didn't know where the painting came from. But since we know that Van Gogh died in 1890, it would be in the public domain. Publishing a picture wouldn't make a difference, would it? That would then mean that every publisher for Shakespeare must pay royalities. --Bash 05:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. If a picture was created in 1890, but not published until 2005, it is under copyright until 2010. See Commons:Commons:Licensing#United States.

In general, just because a picture looks old doesn't mean it is old. Without a source indicated, it's impossible to know that a picture is old enough to be public domain. dbenbenn | talk 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. I'm reading the Commons Licensing page, and it is really confusing. What does this line mean?

Works created but not published before January 1 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they where registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudononymous works) resp. 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first.

Doesn't that mean that a picture created in 1890 make it public domain since 1985? --Bash 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How do I count the images in the category?

I use the pywikipedia framework. Specifically, the following code:

import wikipedia, catlib
q=catlib.Category(wikipedia.Site('en'), 'Images with unknown source').articles();print len(q)

That takes about 15 minutes or so to run on my machine (and dial up connection), and outputs the number of images in the category. Then I just add it to the page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

About how many times are you doing these checks? Once per week? Zach (Sound Off) 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly when I feel like it, or when someone asks me to, or for some other reason. No set schedule, at least so far. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I merged some of the "images in this category" history so the updates come at somewhat regular once-a-week intervals. Coffee 05:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion suggestions

Please let me know if this is not the most appropriate place to post this.

Click here to see a user who uploaded four really unused images that can be speedied. // Fred-Chess 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's alright, we should get a heads up on one uploader just uploading unsourced images left and right; it's now a blockable offense. All photos were deleted and I blocked the user for their username. Zach (Sound Off) 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

uploader notification

I'm all for notifying the uploader especially if it's a recently uploaded image, however I think that it's rediculous that there are images from June that are untagged and we are expected to notify the uploader after they have had plenty of time to tag the image. I prefer just to use good faith when deciding whether or not to notify and I think the notice should probably be changed to reflect the option to do so. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Sure, we can do contacting on the recent stuff, but if it was months and months agom we should be able to fire away. I also wish that we do not have to remove the photos from the articles too. Zach (Sound Off) 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again... The thing is, how would a person know that his image would need a tag? If they did not put it on their watch page, they can't know that it got a "nosource" on it.

Maybe you will think that the upload form makes it clear. Unfortunetely it doesn't. I suspect that few new users know what "GFDL" means or what a free license is. The upload form also contains lots of various information of various kinds, totally intermixed. I don't think I ever read the entire page until right now. And just thinking of the top notice "You can also upload files under a free license (no fair use!) to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content which can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. Uploading your files to Commons is highly recommended.", implies that this something called "free license" would be required to be used in something called "wikimedia" -- makes no sense for newbies. I'm not surprised that people just upload images, and consider everthing on the upload form to be fineprint, i.e. the stuff you never read, because it is only intended to free the company from economical liability. // Fred-Chess 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the notices should be more clear but unless the system can be overhauled I think going through all the listings making sure that they're all notified and notify the uploaders who haven't been notified then seven days later you have to do it all over again for images where the notifier hasn't done anything about it. It presents a huge issue since if we were limited by that no image would ever get deleted due to the ridiculous complexity of it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And while some have gone through the no source category, I am also going through the "unsure/don't know" category and that is getting very filled up too. There is close to 400 photos there, but I am going to wipe most of them off our servers. Zach (Sound Off) 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding clarify the upload page - There Is A Clear Simple Version available on the talk page, just waiting for sufficient consenus to get applied to the page. I'm going to try and drum up this support. Please go to MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Simple_version and express your support, if you feel so moved. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, but if people still do get this, though we made it easier, then we admins should have to get very tough on this issue. I had to whack about 100 copyvio photos, and I plan to delete more very soon. Zach (Sound Off) 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I think that no image should be deleted unless (1) the original uploader is noticed, and (b) all links have been removed. I have spent far too much time lately cleaning up deleters' screw-ups where pages were turned into embarrassing messes all because the deleter couldn't be bothered to clean up links. One feature article some weeks ago lost 4 images and was turned into a ragged mess. What is more, when the deleted images were traced back it turned out that every single one was valid. They had simply been wrongly categorised by the uploader or had not had the required information because they were old images downloaded before the new stricter rules came in. All the deleter had to do was leave a message on the user's talkpage and in in many cases the user might well have been able to trace the source or spot a category error. But people aren't psychic. They may not know that na image they downloaded years ago is a problem. The first they know is when they stumble across the article where it was and find it gone and an ugly red link left.

I spotted one image that had not been notified to the user for deletion but whose source was instantly recognised. It was from the Northern Ireland Assembly and so CrownCopyright. There are large numbers of images in specialist areas whose sources, and so category, is patently obvious. Some users are deleting images without so much as having the cop-on to work out where it is obviously from, and without the politeness to let the downloader know that there is a problem. Frankly, if you can't be bothered letting people know there is a problem with there images, or can't be arsed cleaning up the effects of a deletion, then you shouldn't be doing deletions. If you can't be bothered doing it right, then leave it to someone who will do it properly. FearÉIREANN 22:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to think that but it's not established as a requirement. You might be sick of pages with missing images, but I'm sick of people thinking they can allow wikipedia to continue to violate copyright law and risk the freedom of our content simply because they are worried about some missing images in articles. I could even see the advantage in leaving the missing images in so that people working on the articles will be reminded that we need an illustration, but for the most part that isn't done. I'm sorry about the example mistakes you've found, but we've deleted tens of thousands of images now (at least if you count the fair use ones that have been purged too), there are going to be some mistakes. It is unfortunate but it can all be fixed in the long run. I could equally counter that although some have deleted with ill care, many more were uploaded and used in articles with far less care. Deletion of images will never endanger the project, it is to a greater or lesser extent revertable (if it's an older image I will gladly restore it, if it's a new one presumably the uploader still has it).... but violation of copyright does run a risk to us. For all the unprofessionality of a broken image, I think the unprofessionality of breaking the law and incorrectly managing copyright images is far worse. As a free encyclopedia we need to make a greater effort to avoid the easy assumption that we are a bunch of writer-starving lawbreaking poor-citizens. --Gmaxwell 02:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Among the incompetent deletions have I have had to fix are

• the deletion of 2 GFDL images (explicitly stated to be GFDL).
• eight deletions of valid crowncopyright images.
• a feature article where a host of all valid, all sourced, all legal images were deleted, while leaving the one illegal one in situ.
• the deletion of all images from a long feature article because all the images now were on the commons, without bothering to ensure that the commons images replaced the ones he had deleted.

I have no problem with people who know what they are doing deleting images. I have spent much of my time on Wikipedia removing copyright text and images, so don't lecture me about the law. I was pushing to get the legal status of all images clarified two years ago. But it is not too much to ask for elementary competence in doing it. While most are competent (and I am not attacking them by any stretch of the imagination, it seems that there are a fair few doing deletions who haven't a clue what they are doing, don't know the legal meaning of fairuse, don't know that a version of internet explorer screws up categories (it doesn't show them so people have no way when downloading images of filling in a category) and who delete such images even when the people have listed in the page the source, the location of the image, the category they would have put it into if IE had enabled them to do it, etc. But the asshole who deleted it couldn't be bothered spending 10 seconds correcting the problem. Instead, with notification, without listing it anywhere, he deleted it.

The next person I come across deleting GFDL images, or tearing an article to shreds because they were too lazy to spend 1 minute fixing links, will be reported on the admin page and on the wikilist. If people are too incompetent to do the job properly then they should not be doing it. The incompetent few have managed to piss off a lot of genuine users who do obey copyright rules to the letter. One guy some weeks ago had an article he had worked on for 3 weeks torn to shreds because some incompetent fool didn't know the legal rules regarding crowncopyright images and thought crowncopyright images needed written permission for usage!!! So he deleted them all and reduced a superb article full of illustations to a tangled mess. That sort of incompetence is what I am talking about. I had one of my own images, which I had explicitly given under full licence to WP deleted for no logical reason whatsoever. I had to go to a site that had copied the page from us and download it back again. It couldn't have been more explicit on the page that it was given to WP. The categorisation was correct. The source stated. The only problem was that it was it was downloaded when a different set of commands were used. All the asshole had to do was replace the old command from 2003 with the new one we now use, but he couldn't be bothered. So an important article lost its main image because of a deleter's incompetence. I got 6 emails from others who had the exact same thing happen. Perfectly good, 100% legal images were deleted because of a deleter's incompetence. And everyone was livid. One user, who had loaded large numbers of his own, superb shots, wrote that "Wikipedia can fuck itself if it thinks I'm giving it any more images after this." Incompetent deletions don't make WP more safe (they usually delete legal images and leave illegal ones). They just screw up articles, annoy users and means that it has fewer legal images than it could have to use. FearÉIREANN 03:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

rewrite

I have rewritten a portion of this to make it clear that notifying the uploader is not required only strongly suggested, below is the original and the changed version:

Original:

Don't delete an image unless the uploader has been notified, and it's been at least 7 days since then. After informing the uploader, leave a dated note for other speedy deleters on the image page, to let them know you've done so.

Modified

Those working on this cleanup project should use good judgment when considering deletion. Placing the notice {{No source}} on the uploaders talk page is strongly recommended however admins should use good judgement as to whether notify upload or delete without notice.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean {{subst:Image source|Image:ImageName.jpg}} --~~~~ not {{No source}} on the talk page right? --Sherool 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Notification bot

In a bot of pure brilliant usefulness User:AllyUnion has made a bot to do the notification, making life much easier. So the new categories Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified and Category:Images with unknown source - notified will start to fill up. Justinc 13:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, so far it seems to be dumping everyting from Category:Images with unknown source into Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified while Category:Images with unknown source - notified remains empty... Is this intentional? --Sherool 16:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Luckily, it can be fixed without editing all the image pages again. The bot is properly moving {{no source}} to {{no source notified}} and {{no license}} to {{no license notified}}. The categorization is coming from the templates. The problem is that {{no source notified}} categorizes in Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified. Someone just needs to go in and change that categorization. I'd do it myself but it's protected and I'm not an admin. However, I am going to put Category:Images with unknown copyright status - notified in Category:Images with unknown copyright status and Category:Images with unknown source - notified in Category:Images with unknown source to make the "notified" images easier to find. Hopefully, admins will go through these categories first, as Jesse has already agreed to do. On a related topic, Jesse, can you make that edit? Superm401 | Talk 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done that. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah figured something like that... Someone (a bot) still need to null edit all the images that where tagged before the template was changed though... Hope they fix that problem soon. --Sherool 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter? I presume we are going to do the deletion by hand anyway, and both cats are on speedy, so if some are in the wrong one it doesnt matter that much. (I do wish people wouldnt redirect templates so much it causes endless problems, like copyright and permission). I presume next weekend we start orphaning and then from Monday start deleting (modulo anything that looks mistaken). I was assuming no more bot involvement. Justinc 00:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

So the number was slowly but surely coming down, but then spiked up. Is this due to a pause while everyone is being (re)notified?

Is it likely that at some point 7 days after a major bot run, there will be a really awe inspiring deletion spree? :-) That would rock.--Jimbo Wales 07:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm not expecting it. I ran a query against my local copy of the Wikipedia database tonight (current as of the 20th), and there are still 1553 images in this category which are not even used in a page. I don't see any reason for a complex notification run on images which are not even used, and such images are certantly easy to delete. The process is just slow, it's a pretty thankless job for the people doing the actual deletes. I'm going to help out with automated tools to make the images go away, but it is just going to take time. --Gmaxwell 10:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Those ones presumably were orphaned by hand preparatory to being deleted. Excellent. Anyway the seven days starts today, I will start deleting this evening UTC. Justinc 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd, those ones appear to be new in many cases. I might leave them a few days and work on the notified ones. Justinc 12:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Many of them have been orphaned since before the start of our process, although I'm not sure how many and how long. I could answer that question but the query would take days to run with my current configuration. :) I didn't filter based on newnewss at all, if you'd like reports with the most recent few days removed, or of the notifed subcategory, let me know. (this was of the main category, under the theory that if it's not new and not linked then the requirement to notify or do other work is reduced)--Gmaxwell 12:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you could do a list with all the ones tagged more than 7 days ago I will happily delete them all. Justinc 13:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As you wish. Two groups, one not inline anywere on the 20th, the other inline someplace. All were in category images with unknown source on the 20th. All have not had their image description pages altered since the 17th. So unless someone as removed the nosource notice since the 20th, they have all had the notice over a week. --Gmaxwell 13:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW- people here might be interested in this list of media which is in category Fair use images, yet is not inlined anywhere in the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 14:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

WTF! All those final fantasy audio samples!!!! No way is that fair use. Justinc 16:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I cant alas see a speedy delete criterion for these. I have listed all the final fantasy stuff on ifd - there should be a speedy criterion. Justinc 23:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Couple of options there, they are copyvio, so you could list them as that. I'm going to go ahead and bot catagorize them all into the orphaned fair use category, so we can later just CSD them. Better late than never. I'll keep running reports like this from now on, since it's pretty easy. --Gmaxwell 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. I am going to try to get authorisation to delete them before that because they are so dubious. No one has commented on my dumping over 500 images into ifd without following proper procedure yet. I must sort out database downloads again - havent done it since the format change. Justinc 00:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, my call is they should just be nuked. But if we're going to be all red-tape about it, I don't want to delay the process any further. I should have done this weeks ago. I'll be a few hours before all are tagged, I don't want to run my edits at high speed because (speaking of red tape) it takes a week to get bot permission. There are SQL dumps of just the metadata now, just load into mysql and take a nice long nap ... mysql is as slow as a dog. Loading into PostgreSQL is much faster, but pg gets unhappy at some of the bogus data we have in the database and requires hand tweaking. I too had stopped getting them after the format change.. in fact, all the information wasn't even available until I nagged yesturday due to an oversight. --Gmaxwell 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still slow. Leaving aside the notification and 7 day issues, which I have been ignoring except when the image seems likely to be mistagged or is of particular value to us, it's still time consuming to go through the images, remove them from the articles where they are used, and delete them. I can do about 40 of them in an hour. The images load very slowly, leading me to wonder whether this project is placing an unanticipated strain on resources, particularly for downsampling of images that appear on the category page itself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I can do them at that sort of rate. I dont think its us slowing it down - the thumbs should be cached anyway. Its a new term, the students have discovered wikipedia; some times of day better than others. Ah my first complaint has come in... Justinc 13:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Done deleting the unused unsourced images from Gmaxwell's query. 1549 out of 1554 images deleted. :) Coffee 15:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's back!. I've been mostly paying attention to fair use images recently because there are a lot more of those which are easy deletes. I've updated the list of images which are no source and unused. Enjoy. --Gmaxwell 19:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Template changed

The {{nosource}} template appears to have been changed to include the date; should the instructions for adding this be updated to be something like {{nosource|~~~~~}} (or something similar)? (Normally I'd just be bold, but I'm slightly more circumspect with things that may potentially affect lots of people) --Pak21 12:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'help' note

"To help with deleting these images, one can press "Alt-D" on the keyboard to do so." ANYONE? That seems odd, but if it is just admins (as I suspect), it should probably be rewritten to make that clear. --InShaneee 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's an admin thing, should probably be re-written to clarify that, pluss add what regular aditors can do to help. --Sherool (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

what exactly does image source mean?

G'day all.

I've been cleaning out images (anything starting with J) out of this catergory, either finding sources of each image or notifying uploaders and then marking CSD. This is going pretty well, except there seems to be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes an 'image source', so...opinions people.... and i'm assumeing that {{fairusein|}} is being claimed.

1. If its published on a website, is that information enough?
2. If it's been published in a news publication or magazine, is that information enough?
3. If it has the photographer's (c) information, is that information enough?
4. If the image is a screencapture, then is the source of the video feed enough?

If not, then what further information is required (in each instance). If theres a better place for this query, can somone suggest it? Thanks. Agnte 15:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Users' removing images

In regards to:

Before adding the speedy delete template please notify the uploader (if this hasnt been done already) and also remove the image from all pages (or at least articles) that are currently using it (remember to explain why in the edit summary so people don't think it's vandalism) as requested on WP:CSD#Images/Media.

I want to know others' opinion about this rule. Personally as an admin trying to delete the images I try to "use good judgment when considering deletion" as the page says but I find this to conflict with the above rule. When I can't see where the file was linked I can't judge its worth. If an image is prominantly linked I will try to find a replacement before deleting it, however, when I have no idea where it is linked I just delete it. I understand the legal issue and am not trying to advocate keeping good pictures under faulty copyright premises indefinitely but just that I would like to know how important what I'm deleting is so I can make an effort to replace it, or defer it to someone who might know better. When I can't see where the image was linked I lose this ability. In my opinion if this is the policy we might as well have a bot do it. If an image in no point in its history has any copyright tag then it it given a no source tag by the bot. It comes back in seven days and if still no tag exists then it is deleted. Simple and sweet. Under the current system it's merely a waste of time to have human involvement because judgment of the admin becomes less meaningful when we can't see where things were. I don't know if anyone agrees or disagrees but I'd like to hear opinions on this at least. Also, if people disagree with me then could we get a bot like that going? It'd be a whole lot quicker and waste a lot less admin time that could be spent on CSD or something more useful. Thanks. gren グレン 17:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Things can look orphaned because of articles being vandalized (this happened to several of my images). I've started adding links from the description page to the articles that seem reasonable, so if a link is present one way but not the other, something is fishy. In a couple more cases (such as a NASA photo), I was certain that it was legit, and a little Googling turned up the source. Since this likely to be each image's last stop before disappearing, I'd prefer an actual human to do one last check. Stan 17:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and a good development (in my opinion) has been Orphan bot, which leaves on the page where the image was linked. Very useful. gren グレン 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nsd

I have created this template as an alternative version of 'no source'. It places images into categories by day, for example Category:Images with unknown source: December 5. It does not put those images in the larger category. This will ease cleanup of CAT:NS, because editors won't have to wade through all the images that can't be deleted yet. To add nsd to an image, use {{nsd|<monthname> <day number>}} (example: {{nsd|December 5}}). Ingoolemo ^talk 17:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources again

I would have thought this was obvious, but screenshots, book covers, album covers, etc, all have a single unambiguous source - the publisher. For the purposes of copyright, it doesn't matter whether the work was scanned, photographed, collected from a web site which collected it from some other website, or whatever. Similarly for logos and seals, by definition the source is the organization represented by the symbol. So in all these cases, the description of what the image represents is also a sufficient description of their source. (It doesn't hurt to mention how the image was collected, in case one wishes to compare quality of different copies.) Stan 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're just saying that the source is the source, but as with any image, that source might not be known. For example, if an image is tagged as a {{film-screenshot}}, we have to know what film it is from. For an image tagged as an {{album cover}}, we need to know what album it is. For a {{logo}}, we need to know whose logo it is.

I agree that for this kind of image, the source can often be deduced. But not always. (And I also agree, of course, that the way the screenshot was made is irrelevant to copyright status.) dbenbenn | talk 01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well duh. But in some cases people were marking as "no source" even when the image description page listed title, author, and publisher. Though nowadays, after having retagged a couple thousand images, I've moved into the "I don't care anymore, delete everything in sight" zone... :-) Stan 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JillandJack

You may have noticed that I've been flooding these categories with images uploaded by JillandJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I wanted to alert you to the status of these images--this user was indefinitely blocked for, among other things, serial copyright violations, and the images are to be regarded with suspicion. In particular, JillandJack had the habit of not placing sources on images they claimed to be public domain; their claims should probably be taken with skepticism. See User:DW for more information. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Backlog

Don't put the backlog template if the earliest images are only 7 days old! That's how long we have to wait, and doesn't indicate a problem. Superm401 - Talk 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Source again

Image:1stBibleCharlesBaldFol011rInitGen.jpg has been tagged as being without a source. This is an image of a page from th First Bible of Charles the Bald an 1100+ year old manuscript. The ultimate source for this image is that it was created by an anonymous artist, probably a monk in the 9th century. The image on wikipedia has had at least two intermediary images: a photograph taken of the manuscript page, and a digitial scan made of the photograph. However, under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the intermediaries are automatically public domain, since the original is a two-dimensional art work in the public domain. This is true regardless who made the intermediares. The image page identified the manuscript from which the image came, even to the point of naming the page it came from. (I have since added the shelfmark, which removes any ambiguity as to the manuscripts identity.) I would argue that the source for this manuscript has been adequately identified, and that there is no doubt of the copyright status of this image. Dsmdgold 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gallery view

Shouldn't this be using NOGALLERY? I would suspect many of the images would be copyrighted in the usual case of what would be categorized here. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)