Jump to content

Wikipedia:File namespace noticeboard/Archives/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MtC drive

As will be mentioned in next weeks signpost, there will be a drive to move all files to the commons. Just a heads up, ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the noticeboard!

Hey everyone, thanks for your support in getting this approved! I'm giddy.

Can someone get an archive bot and all of its associated templates set up please. I'd say we should set it's timer to 90 days now, and move that up as the board becomes more active, but I'm open to other ideas. The talk page will also need a bot eventually. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Already done. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
...by me. →Στc. 06:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

F8 Award

I am willing to give out barnstars to admins who can help reduce the number of files tagged for deletion under F8. Additional information can be found here --Guerillero | My Talk 05:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only going to get larger comes January, when the transfer to commons drive starts. Best get it started now. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I thing you should up the awards, as deletion is easier than moving to commons (I find on incubator: and strategy:). But it's my opinion only. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I also think that it could be merged for the January MtC drive, as sysops are instructed to log their deletions. The awards for deletion in a seperate event that has to do with a bigger event should get merged (As WikiProject Images and Media did for WikiProject Moving free images to the Commons) ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm against merging them, as the drives are only quarterly. The idea behind the award appears to be encouraging admins to tackle that separate backlog, let's not time constrain the giving of awards for clearing the F8s. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
What Sven said --Guerillero | My Talk 20:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Filemover

There is a proposal to add suppressredirect to the file mover user right --Guerillero | My Talk 20:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cross post from the VP

There's a proposal for the creation of a bot notes which pages a file has been used on. Just letting you all know. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For the Common Good

File workers might like to know about For the Common Good, a new Commons transfer tool. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The File Bin

Hi there. One of the things I'd really like to do sometime early next year is collect all of the tasks, pending, in progress, and planned, that involve large amounts of work related to the File namespace, as well as get a list of all the bots working the namespace, and all of the pages that need to be watched. It'll be kinda like the Wikipedia:Dashboard, but specific to this namespace.

Why am I doing this? Simply put, there's nowhere right now that anyone can go to and get anything close to a complete picture of what's happening. I know of about a half dozen major projects going on and about a dozen backlogs, but every time I think I've found everything, I find out about something else. This allows people to get a better picture of what's out there, so that we can individually or as a group decide on what to prioritize and when, hopefully leading to increased efficiency, productivity, or at the very least sanity.

I'm just going to put things down here. If you want to participate, just add things straigt into the list. When we have enough, I'll commission someone who's good with templates to whip up a nice page for us. I think we can turn it into a really wonderful resource. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


Tasks
  • File renaming - useless names and largely duplicitive names. Chzz has, in the past, run a TS program that generated lists, see also Nikola's tool. This has seen a lot of work, but is still in the thousands of items
  • Copying to Commons - backlog is in the hundreds of thousands. Drives are planned for roughly quarterly until the problem is fixed. Ebe123 is ran the last drive and is running the Jan. 2012 drive
    • Admins are needed to delete the duplicate files here in en-Wikipedia left over from the last drive
  • Files that need information - See the needs authorship and needs description entries at Wikipedia:GBD. 15,000 items between the two categories
Bots working the File namespace

What is the purpose of Template:Needs commons category

I just wanted to know if anyone had any idea what the purpose of Template:Needs commons category was. It's used in less than 50 pages, despite tens of thousands of files qualifing for the problem it is describing. I personally don't see a use for it, as the vast majority of files are categorized upon or after transfer, using but not depending on the existing Wikipedia categories, if a file is categorized, which is always a big if itself.

Before I list this for deletion though, I wanted to know if anyone could think of a valid reason to keep it, or had suggestions on improving it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about this myself. I've seen only one file that actually has interwiki links to Commons categories. You may as well transfer the file to Commons and get it over and done with, rather than worrying about this template. I say, take it to TFD. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Template was nominated for deletion by Ebe123 (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this template was related to a bot that Betacommand (now User:Delta - with the sign that I can't type) used to run. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Filemover proposal and this noticeboard

See WT:File mover#Centralized discussion page -- a discussion is occurring about a similar structure to WP:RM for file moves, and whether this notice board is an apporpriate venue for posting file rename requests and discussions on the merits of those requests. 70.24.251.194 (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle and {{now Commons}}

  • When you tag a file with {{now Commons}} using Twinkle's "tag" tab, Twinkle automatically removes any {{move to Commons}} template that may be present. (Many common redirects to that template are detected and removed as well.)
  • When you nominate a file for CSD, DI, FFD, or PUF, the {{now Commons}} template (if present) is removed from the file page.

I hope this makes people happy. Please direct any further comments to WT:TW. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! Sven Manguard Wha? 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, saves me an extra edit each time :) Acather96 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} images tagged with Fair use

There are a large number of images tagged with {{Non-free logo}}, when in fact they do not meet the Threshold of Originality (such as File:Aelita-logo.png [1]). Therefore, they should instead be tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademark}}. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, there are tens of thousands of images with that problem. IMHO, this is the least of our worries. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll be working on it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I would rather we cleared the MtC, F5 and F8 backlogs first --Guerillero | My Talk 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Besides, moving them to Commons typically tends to take about as much time as fixing the licence here, so it seems better to move them there instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any prohibition on using user made sketches of people to illustrate those people in articles?

I came across File:Γιώργος Ζαμπέτας.jpg, and my gut reaction was to place it up for deletion. I'm not entirely sure if it would qualify as 'original research', but I have no idea how accurate it is, and the situation itself is highly irregular. Do we allow these? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know from past discussions, they're allowed but often they're just copyvios as derivative works of photos. That was obviously the case for this one, so I nominated it for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Calliopejen1 on this. There are two issues here:
  • I don't think "original research" is as much of a problem with files — files contain works of art that could illustrate unusual opinions or anything else, and this particular drawing is no more odd than, say, a Rembrandt, and certainly less strange than a Picasso. For example: even if art reflected an invalid or strange opinion, it might still be usable on Wikipedia if it was used to illustrate the existence of such invalid or strange opinions. Now, to actually include the file in an article, it might require verifiability that the image actually looks like the person, particularly if the person is living and someone actually challenged the image being a likeness of the person. (Also, if the file or its description were to contain controversial statements about living people, those would need to be taken care of immediately.) Also, if the file was unlikely to serve any educational purpose, of course, then it probably would end up deleted in discussion anyway; and being a new Wikipedia portrait, that isn't really likeness of someone and has no special attributes, is unlikely to be educational.
  • With drawings like these, the real problem is usually copyright. If the drawing is based on a photograph or other work, and the drawing is similar enough that it is considered a derivative work under the laws of the country where the photo or the drawing was first published, or in the United States, then the original photograph/work needs to be public domain or licensed also. As Calliopejen1 has noticed this, the file is now up for deletion as Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 27#File:Γιώργος Ζαμπέτας.jpg. --Closeapple (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulwersator's Echo project

Just in case anyone was looking for something to do, check out User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images - It's a list of articles on en.wiki without images in the infoboxes, but which do have images in their pl.wiki articles. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

US District Court template now broken due to file deletions

Have a look at {{Infobox United States District Court case/images}}. Thanks to deleting a whole stack of images, this now doesn't work, and there is stray "150px" wording on potentially thousands of articles. Any chance someone could sort it out? I'm happy to undelete images if necessary, but it'd be helpful if we could have some consensus on whether things like the deleted image File:Arkansas-eastern.gif should have been F4'd or whether US court seals are PD and can go on Commons. To see an example of a case that's been screwed up by this, check McLean v. Arkansas. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth did Fastily delete these as F4? They clearly have a license template, and the template is reasonable at first glance. Was there a deletion discussion anywhere about these files? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
He's not here right now, and he has a banner that says that admins can unilaterally reverse his decisions while he's away. If the F4 deletions were actually in error, then restore them. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
He deleted them as unsourced; they didn't have a source listed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reflections on the Transfer to Commons Drives

I'd like to pose to the file worker community the question of whether or not we should continue to use the Transfer to Commons Drive model for getting locally hosted free use files transferred to Commons.

The first drive, which occurred in 2011, had a small number of users particpating, and a large number of reviewers, who reviewed pretty much everyone's work in a relatively timely manner. We had one or two users who didn't get how to do transfers correctly, and they left the drive after their work was reviewed and the problems were pointed out. The drive moved several thousand files.

The drive that occurred this month, the second ever, saw 75 people sign up, although a good number of those didn't log a file move, with five reviewers (myself included), none of whom did reviews consistently, which led to large numbers of participants whose work was never looked at by an experienced mover.

A frighteningly high number of bad moves were done during this drive. Obvious copyvios were moved to Commons, transfers where no authorship or no description made it to Commons were a regular occurrence, and in some cases the transferer's username was listed as the sole source and auhtor, a side effect of the careless use of CommonsHelper. Additionally, a user who was not signed up for the drive was using a badly broken bot to do transfers. Between the users (many of whom, experience shows, would have fixed the issues had they been made aware of them), and the bot (whose owner ignored the issue until I had the bot indeffed), I spend far, far more time this drive fixing bad moves and trying to salvage files at risk for deletion than I spent time performing moves myself.

With over 100,000 files tagged, and 100,000 additional freely licensed files on top of that, a system is clearly needed for getting files over to Commons. This drive saw 15,000 files moved over, which is fantastic, but hundreds of those have problems, some of them serious, deletion warranting problems, the vast majority of which are avoidable.

I don't know if an entirely new system is what is needed, I think that improvements to the Drive system should be tried first. I personally believe that the reviewing system needs a revamp. I argued after the last drive that we don't need to spend time reviewing people who have shown that they know how to do it right, and was in favor of essentially not reviewing people that didn't have any problems in previous drives. Ebe123 didn't like that idea, but was in favor of doing less reviews for those people. Since he started the drives, I deferred to him. In the end, no one really got reviewed this drive anyways, so it was a moot point. My first instinct would be to start there, and try and get a more efficient system of reviewing. That, however, would miss the users who don't log their moves. I also thought that a simple, slideshow style how-to guide might help, although I doubt most people would read it. My final thought is that bug 32341's resolution will mean that a new generation of transfer tools will be created, and that we need to insist on those tools handling the file information better than CommonsHelper did.

I'd like to get some ideas from you all, and see if we could try some of them out in the March drive. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is clear, and another problem is having the list on toolserver. We can not mark them and there is a problem on pretty much all the files. I didn't like the "stop reviews for experienced users", as people can make bad mistakes (I did). There are some users that just can't be reviewed, and that has the big yellow template hanging on almost all his files, and ignoring our point on removing them. bug 32341 is just a part of the Upload-by-URL. One problem for reviewing can take about 1 to 2 minutes for a full review, as we mark it, and write the problem if there is one. A tool might be good, where you do not have to find the reviewed file. Finally, by some reviews, they just move and move, the files too rapidly to do necessary changes, such as 1 minute intervals, with replag is too short of time to do changes and such. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
One small (but possibly significant) way to help would be to impress upon bot and script users — and, possibly more importantly, bot and script writers — that the Commons description needs at least {{BotMoveToCommons|en.wikipedia}} and the original Wikipedia uploader's name, date, and Wikipedia filename added to the description, even if they aren't going to do anything else with it, and even if it's just appended to the beginning or end without further processing. I think it might be easy to contact most of the bot and script writers and inform them of the help it would be to Commons if their transfer tools did this by default, so that it always happens except when a user is experienced enough to turn it off. As for myself: one of the reasons I'm not in the top 10 in Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012/Logs is because I almost always take the time clean the categories and information up when I transfer: either right after a CommonsHelper transfer, or actually in the description box in For the Common Good before I hit the transfer button, so it arrives at Commons already done. (FTCG doesn't have HotCat, so I do it on Commons:Commons:Sandbox or a page I won't save, then paste the results into FTCG.) If there was a script that let me mass-transfer files (which I had already checked to see if they were appropriate for Commons), adding the Wikipedia upload log and tagging them so I could come back and categorize/clean them later, instead of doing one transfer at a time, I would probably use that. --Closeapple (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed plenty of improperly moved files (e.g. thumbnail moved to Commons with no {{NowCommons}} tag on Wikipedia and only a URL pointing from Commons to Wikipedia without history listed). However, most of the improper moves I spotted were old, often made several years ago. When I come across those situations, I try to clean them up (opening the English Wikipedia file page in For the Common Good helps a lot when writing the edit summary) and tag them as being on Commons and this takes some time, but not really more than a standard move. Has the percentage of improper moves in January really been higher than the percentage of improper moves at other times? If the move is done so improperly that it risks deletion at Commons, it might be easier to let the Commons admins delete the file and then transfer it properly after that instead. For reviews, I think that we should consider that new users typically make errors in the beginning and that it is more important to check the first few transfers. Unless there are a lot of errors, it may be more efficient not to do more reviews of that user's transfers. I assume that sysops know what they do when they transfer files and that transfers made by other people will be reviewed by a sysop in the end anyway. I think that it must be possible to edit other people's transfer history for comments about the transfers, so I think that the history must be placed on some editable page on either English Wikipedia or Commons. I also prefer to have a completely done file description page in For the Common Good before hitting transfer and this slows transfers down. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a related topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons#Strategy. Multichill (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I stopped with logging my edits because the page was simply got unusable for me. (Maybe I should cleanup my browser and my open tabs, but the point is: the logging page is/was a mess!)
I stopped also uploading images after I was handling more PUF and copyvio images than uploading. Many images are simply (or likely) copyvios and if one user uploads one copyvio, hence then there is mostly more copyvios by the same user... mabdul 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move Wikipedia:Image file names to Wikipedia:File names

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image file names. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Template:Derivative for deletion

Hello, this is just a heads up to inform you that I have nominated Template:Derivative for deletion at TFD. Please comment and add your input on the nomination page which you can find here. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a place to train web designers on alt text?

While creating an infobox today and contemplating the difficulty of writing good alt text for images, I was wondering whether we could use this as a potential outreach/education opportunity. Lots of web designers have to learn about accessibility either as just a fundamentally good thing for users, or perhaps to comply with Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, BS8878/PAS78, WCAG etc. Writing good alt text is an art in itself, and Wikipedia could be a good place to learn that art. For people teaching web accessibility techniques to new web designers, we could encourage them to come to Wikipedia and improve both captions and alt text in articles, in infoboxes, whatever.

I'm not sure whether people think this would be desirable, but to accomplish it, I'd suggest something like the following.

  1. Prepare a simple guide on Outreach wiki which just gives a simple "so, your teacher/colleague/training course/whatever has told you to come to Wikipedia to edit alt text, here's how you get started" guidelines. It'd point to WP:ALT, explain the technical stuff (pointers to MediaWiki syntax) and also explain basic policy (alt text still has to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:BLP etc.) and some subtle hinting towards the fact that just because they are a student doesn't mean we won't block them in a heartbeat if they use alt text as a route to vandalism.
  2. Find ways to expose articles needing alt text improvements. Hopefully that doesn't mean we start go around with Twinkle slinging yet more cleanup templates. It might mean just a page suggesting they start with high traffic articles or new articles or to work from new image uploads or whatever. Or perhaps to go through WP:GAN and WP:FAC looking at alt text on articles that are being nominated for GA/FA and improve alt text coverage.
  3. Have one or two volunteers or Foundation people who teachers could contact to give advice and information. This might be as simple as ensuring that existing education outreach people know about image issues.
  4. Creating a userbox/user category so we can track students who are working on alt text.
  5. Identifying web design/accessibility people and showing them Wikipedia as a possibility for this, and exploring if there are other ways we can improve accessibility on Wikipedia using student volunteers. I've seen cleanup templates for articles that convey important information exclusively through colour (which is an accessibility no-no), so perhaps that can be something students can go on to do after learning about alt text.

Ideally, the nice thing about this is that it could have a holistic role in education: newbie web designers get to learn about wiki syntax (which is always useful), collaboration and accessibility in a place where it has real-world effects. (Although this isn't strictly file namespace, it's definitely file-related, so here seems a much better place to post it than village pump etc.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Most people on Wikipedia don't even know about alt texts, let alone how to do them. I'm all for getting a training program up and running, but it should target Wikipedians first, with the possibility of expanding to outside parties later. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not trying to add this to the GAN and FAN criteria? mabdul 15:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion for shortening the length of PUF

There is currently a discussion going on for shortening the length of time for PUF from 14 to 7 days. It is at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files#Proposal to shorten discussion time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:File Database Reports

Just thought I'd bring this page to the attention of any interested file workers. I'm also taking requests for daily database reports pertaining exclusively to files. If you have an idea for a report, describe it below and I'll see if I can implement it for you. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Files with the same name here and at commons ("hidden files"), maybe with an exception of {{nowcommons}} (same filename). mabdul 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please! It would be even better if a bot could tag {{NowCommons}} or {{ShadowsCommons}} as appropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, User:MGA73 operates a bot that flags such files for deletion, so I don't think a Database Report would be necessary in this case. If his bot hasn't been running that task as of late, someone ought to let him know. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
mmmh, maybe a one time task: checking if an image is simply too small (say 0X0 - mostly a problem of svgs) or icons which are smaller than 16X16 pixel. mabdul 13:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
That's doable. I'll put together a report for you. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-free media?

We have {{free media}} and {{non-free media}} but what should we do with files that is free in the US but not in its source country? For example: {{PD-USonly}}, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}. Should we add a {{free in US media}}? To make it easier for bots all files should be in a category where it is very easy to see if the file is free or not. --MGA73 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also {{FoP-USonly}} (sort of). Above solution works for me. Although I've pointed out that every one of those templates has {{Do not move to Commons}} attached, which is fairly easy to search for. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
What is the correct template for buildings in countries without any freedom of panorama? {{FoP-USonly}} and {{Non-free architectural work}} seem to fill the same purpose. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that these two templates cover the same. Does that mean that we should change the templates to "non-free media"? --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
There is now a discussion about this matter at Template talk:FoP-USonly. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It is now created and the files are in Category:All free in US media. There are not many files in the category yet but I expect the number to grow. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is also the opposite (Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S.) which usually means that something is free in the country of origin but not in the US. Maybe the categories should link to each other because of their similar purpose? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to fix and improve. But if it is not free in the US is it not a copyvio that should be deleted? Why not change the template to non-free and ask that a fair use rationale is added if the file should stay? --MGA73 (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I assume that fair use rationales need to be added, but I also assume that people are more busy with handling the much bigger {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} category on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Image-toosmall

Template:Image-toosmall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Philippines buildings

There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines, so the images at List of cathedrals in the Philippines and elsewhere are more than likely non-free. Do you think that these should be converted into non-free images (and removed from the list but left on the articles on the buildings themselves) or just deleted? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep if old, delete if recent and at Commons and add {{FoP-USonly|the Philippines}} to any recent images stored here, I'd say. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not-PD-US-URAA

There are several files in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. which are free in the country of origin but unfree in the United States. Shouldn't we start checking whether the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag is correct, and if so, tag them with {{di-no fair use rationale}} (or alternatively write a fair use rationale)? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

{{ShadowsCommons}}

I have populated Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons with a lot of files. Feel free to help sorting it out. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Files for Upload and Armbrust's retirement

Hi there. In case you haven't already heard, Armbrust has just retired. Armbrust was for many months the primary, and often only, person to work at Files for Upload WP:FFU, and that service will need to be monitored. Since I'm largely become a Commons and OTRS only user, I'm not a reliable choice to be the replacement. mabdul and a new user, WheresTristan, have handled the last few, which is good, but I have no idea how long that'll last. Armbrust is the only person I can recall as having the patience to do FFU long term. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm active there since ~8 months. I think I can handle also the bigger problems, although help is always welcomed ;) mabdul 08:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If any of the people working at FFU need the filemover bit, ask me on my talk page --Guerillero | My Talk 18:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to disallow F8 deletions

Some of you might already have seen this discussion, for example because it was mentioned at Commons:COM:VP#Wikipedia no longer trusts Commons. Those of you who are watching this page might be interested in the outcome of this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you good sir --Guerillero | My Talk 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to CSD#F8

Please take note of a thread I've started at WT:CSD#Proposed change to CSD#F8. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests for templates for depictions of architecture

Several templates for depictions of architecture have been nominated for deletion. People might wish to comment:

Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, not sure if this is the right place to ask, so feel free to point me elsewhere if necessary. Anyway, I was just wondering if File:Austrias next topmodel.jpg really is not original enough to be under copyright? It looks reasonably original to me, but my knowledge of image copyright is pretty limited, so I thought I'd ask before taking any actions. Jenks24 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted I'm stricter than most, but I would say it is too original to be PD. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much for the help. Jenks24 (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup in orphan images

We have 113,333 orphan/unused files in Category:Wikipedia orphaned files. Some are no longer usable, some are copyvios, some are "hidden treasures" and some could be usable if they get a better description.

I posted a suggestion about that in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives#Orphan_images. Feel free to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Rolandhelper

I'm not sure whether or not most of them are deletable as F6. The {{nfur}} template is present, but the information in the template is uninformative and almost useless, which led me to believe that the files "claim fair use but without a use rationale". But, as I rarely work with files, I may be wrong, so is there someone more experienced who could examine the situation? →Στc. 03:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to fail most points at WP:FUR#Necessary components. If a file information page has some aspects of a FUR but lacks other aspects, maybe {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} could be used to point out that the FUR doesn't fulfil all criteria of WP:NFCC#10c? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I've tagged them with that template. →Στc. 23:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:FFU

Please help out there! I have no internet access (nor the time atm) and Armbrust is "inactive" and thus there were no real edits by experienced users since beginning of sep... mabdul 11:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

License for placeholders and MtC

I just suggested to change the license on Template_talk:Multilicense_replacing_placeholder#Propose to update the license to include cc-by-sa-3.0.

But before we can update the license we need to change the old files so we can either change the license to {{Multilicense replacing placeholder (old)}} (or perhaps keep the same name but add a "|license=old") or we could move the files to Commons and delete the local one on en-wiki. So if someone have nothing else to do there is a few hundred files to move :-D --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the first part... But moving to Commons is still a good idea :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder new already accomplishes this task. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

human= parameter on {{Copy to Commons}}

Is the |human= parmeter on {{copy to Commons}} supposed to be used by the user who tags the page to begin with, or by another user who comes by and "endorses" the tag? The template documentation is ambiguous (seeming to suggest the former, though it could be either), and the wording on the tag itself seems to suggest the latter. What is the intended meaning? — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It just means that the move to Commons tag was reviewed by a human and not a bot. It doesn't matter who tags it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Vietnamesemooncakes.jpg

I hope I am in the right place. Anyway, would someone please take a look at the IP's comment here and see if there is a valid concern? I'm probably too tired to do serious thinking about something I don't really understand at any time, and this should probably get looked at. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 16#File:Vietnamesemooncakes.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names

Assistance in clearing the last 50 or so 'odds and ends' of this would be appreciated :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, what should be done with them? File:Indian Butterfly.jpg and File:Indian butterfly.jpg have very similar file names, but there doesn't seem to be any valid renaming criterion for changing the names of the files, except possibly criterion 4, but that requires identifying the species, and the reference desk answer doesn't seem to be very clear. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I get the impression, that the list IS now pared down to as short as it can be. Most of the remaining entries as you don't meet re-naming criterion. The others seem to be protected generics. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Generic file names, like File:House.jpg or File:Building.jpg, do not meet any renaming criterion if the name describes the image, and File:House.jpg does show a house. This was discussed on Commons at Commons:Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2012#Policy on very short filenames, and I see that Wikipedia doesn't have a valid renaming criterion for that either. I think that it would be better if those protected generic files could be replaced by redirects. They make it difficult to go through Category:Public domain files ineligible for copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_files_lacking_a_description

OK So I've been able to get this down to around 1500 images so far, Some assistance would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Contacting user to confirm permission

Hi,

Can someone please contact the owner of video99.co.uk and colin99.co.uk as appropriate to confirm and register permission for these images:-

"With permission of" video99.co.uk

"With permission of" colin99.co.uk

I'm confident that the uploader is the owner of the website(s) and the copyright holder anyway. However, when I tried transferring the first image (of the SVR video recorder) above to Commons- something I thought would be helpful(!)- both copies (the original here and at Commons) had "missing evidence of permission" plastered on it, placing it at risk of deletion.

Although the last five images seem to indicate permission has already been registered, this apparently isn't registered via the OTRS system (some have OTRS templates with missing information?!). While I appreciate that this is a bureaucratic formality, it's clear that any images that state "with permission of" that don't have permission registered in the OTRS are at risk of deletion. So it has to be done, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, I don't have a way of emailing the guy while retaining my anonymity (which I prefer to retain for my contributions to Wikipedia and Commons), and as he appears to be an infrequent user, posting to his page is unlikely to get a response before the image is deleted.

If an admin who already has email setup (and uses it) could contact this user by email to confirm permission via the OTRS system, that would be great. In both cases the email address is colin99@video99.co.uk, as can be found on the home pages of both sites. (Please also acknowledge that he has *already* granted permission and apologise on my behalf for having to give it twice). Ubcule (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Kelly (talk · contribs) added a {{PermissionOTRS}} template to some of the images, but didn't include a ticket number. I'm asking there and at WP:OTRS/N... --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Crap, I have no memory of this. I suspect I must have been trying to help out another user - maybe it was before {{OTRS pending}} or before I knew about that template. Wish I could be more helpful. Kelly hi! 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In which case, what should we/I/whoever do about this? Obviously, all this user's images are at risk of being tagged and deleted if they aren't registered with OTRS. Ubcule (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Additional; I've sent an email to this person to make them aware of what's happening. :-( Ubcule (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I gather the user has now sent permission for the deletion-nominated image to the OTRS address. Should I ask them to grant (or re-grant) permission for any of their other images that say "with permission of" as well (to avoid deletion in future)?
See this list of possible OTRS candidates "with permission of" here.
Ubcule (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Image revert issue

File:Loews Corp.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd posted this to WP:AN and got no response, then I saw this board.

I reverted a new upload to this file (in part because the uploader didn't update the source), but whereas the file itself appears to have updated, the hard link to the file still displays the old version. I tried to revert a couple more times to see if that fixed the problem, and it did not. Hard refreshing and purging were no help, nor was waiting. Is this something that needs to be fixed? Also, do the extra reverts need to be deleted or something? Thanks! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a caching issue. I see the correct file, but maybe people see the wrong one if accessing the file from another country. It can be solved by moving the file or by just waiting until the cache has been deleted. I solved this by simply moving the file to Commons under a different name.
The other logo is currently used on the company's website, so maybe your logo is an older logo? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Sounds good. As to the currentness of the logo, I try to avoid going by "what's on the website" since I've been burned by that in the past; some companies' websites employ odd variants of their logos. But seeing as that new version is actually on the cover of their most recent Form 10-K report, I guess they may have updated it. I notice you transferred the older version to Commons: I don't think the newer version also falls under the WP:TOO exception. I'll self-revert since the old logo is under a new filename at Commons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File locked against reverting to original name

An editor, unsupported by consensus, has renamed an article to Christianophobia and anti-Christian sentiment. There was no discussion nor consensus. I tried to move this back to the original name, pending a discussion and consensus. It failed. In lieu of removing other locks, please delete the former (shorter) article name Anti-Christian sentiment. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Student7: - Sorry, but we don't delete pages that are redirects. However, if you want to get others involved in reviewing the renaming that did happen, there is a section at Wikipedia:Requested moves where this can be done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC needs outside comment.

See Talk:Sousveillance for an RFC on the use of a picture which needs outside comment. Any additional comments would be useful to prevent an edit war and help provide resolution. Thanks. --Jayron32 23:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Village Pump

Should the file namespace be added to the domain of WP:Requested moves? See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_109#File naming policy and renaming activity. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Open Government Licence v2.0

The UK's National Archives have released version 2.0 of the Open Government Licence (see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/855.htm). I've drafted a template for this at User:Nthep/OGL-2.0, comments, amendements etc welcome before any decision is made on moving it to template space. Also to consider should {{OGL}} be moved to {{OGL-1.0}}? NtheP (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments, so I've moved to template space as {{OGL-2.0}}. NtheP (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC on NFCC

This is alert you that a RFC was placed in NFCC Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Discussion_on_simplying_the_text_of_NFCC. Your response it appreciated.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  14:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_namespace_noticeboard/Archives/1&oldid=1146650483"