Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.177.138.113 (talk) at 22:41, 2 August 2005 (→August 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For licensing issues that are not copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. For images duplicated at the Commons use the {{NowCommons|Image:newname.ext}} tag instead of listing here, unless there's some reason the version here actually needs to be deleted.

Images that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Listing instructions

To list an image:

  1. Add {{ifd}} to the image page.
  2. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw|Image:Image name.ext}} (replace "Image name.ext" with the name of the image or media).
  3. List the image at the bottom of this page. If it has been replaced by another image, also list that image, in the format "[[:Image:Foo.jpg]] - obsoleted by [[:Image:Bar.jpg]]".

If you remove an image from an article, you should list the article from which you removed it, so there can be effective community review of whether the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.

On this page, state the reasons that the image should be deleted. Some people like to use the following abbreviations:

  • AB (absentee uploader) - the uploader has not contributed to Wikipedia in a long time, and is probably unavailable to answer questions.
  • CV (copyright violation) - the image might be used in violation of copyright, or else there is no copyright info provided
  • NE (not English) - the image contains text that is not English.
  • NS (no source) - image does not contain source and copyright info; tagged with {{No source}}.
  • OB (obsolete) - the image has been replaced by a better version.
  • OF (out-of-focus) - the image is blurry.
  • OR (orphan) - the image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia

Please sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~

Instructions for administrators

General

Before deleting an image, make sure of the following:

  • That the image has been listed on this page for one week or longer
  • That the uploader has been alerted on their talk page to the imminent deletion of their image
  • That no objections to its deletion have been raised, or that a consensus to delete has been reached
  • That the image is not used in any articles (note that "What links here" is not currently reliable)
  • That the image is not currently being processed as a copyright violation

Remember to check the image talk page for relevant comments, too.

If the image is to be kept, copy the discussion to the image talk page, and remove the {{ifd}} tag from the image.

When you've finished processing an image (either delete or keep), remove the listing from this page.

Avoid processing your own nominations.

See also Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.

Images moved to Commons

When deleting an image because it is now at the Wikimedia Commons, make sure the Commons version is totally kosher. Among other things, check that:

  1. all relevant revisions of the image have been pushed to the Commons, not just the most recent one.
  2. the Commons version really is as good as or better than the local one.
  3. the Commons version is really free, and properly tagged.
  4. the Commons version is properly attributed.


July 19

July 20

  • Image:Dingo.jpg Unneeded duplicate of Commons:Image:Dingo.jpg. In the image history, there are two other photos. The version by User:Karen Johnson has no license specified, and the version by User:Tannin is non-free. dbenbenn | talk 14:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the image history, the images by Karen Johnson and Tannin indicate that it's their own picture, thereby GFDL by default since they didn't provide a different license. RedWolf 04:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've always felt that was a somewhat dubious claim. Although Special:Upload now says "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain", it didn't say anything so explicit back in 2003. If you really think they're free, perhaps the right solution is to upload them to the Commons (with different names). dbenbenn | talk 00:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

Oppose deletion. Ian Sinclair emailed me and confirmed that he has permission from Greg Beattie to use the graphs exactly as proposed. He also encouraged those who wanted to delete them to perform an anatomically impossible act on themselves. Deleting these amounts to censorship. --Leifern 01:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have now obtained permission from Greg Beattie, the author, directly. This issue has been resolved.--Leifern 20:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Barrels.jpg moved to commons, is blocking a different commons image. --21:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

July 25

July 26

July 27

  • Image:Island movie poster.jpg, OR, OB by Image:The-island.jpg . Thunderbrand 02:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Mission-accomplished-thanksgiving.jpg OR, UE. Doctored photo of George W. Bush, compare to real photo [2], [3]. Rhobite 02:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Ronhyatt.jpg CV. Playboy/Playgirl have a tendancy to sue the pants off anyone using their media without permission.  ALKIVAR™ 03:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Semen.jpg OR NS UE --Alan Au 05:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, delete. Basically a porn "facial" shot apparently intended to illustrate semen, but it doesn't. The semen is barely visible and the bulk of the shot is taken up by a pretty girl with a mischievous grin on her face. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If that particular picture was taken by the original contributor, I encourage their enthusiasm (although misdirected) nevertheless ;) -- Ashmodai 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. --Berserk798 04:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Rabin's Tomb (small).jpg, OB by Image:Rabins' Grave.JPG.--Pharos 05:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Footfetish.jpg untagged, contributed by Necromancing, untagged and possibly copyvio. See earlier IfD entries on July 25th. Doesn't exactly add much to the correspdonding article (in fact, even a diagram of a "foot job" would add more than this does). -- Ashmodai 08:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [:Image:Dsc04769.jpg] and in fact nearly all image contributions by that user seem highly questionable and have no other copyright information than "promo image" tagged onto them. Seems like someone's been busy. -- Ashmodai 08:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Victim of Lenin's Famine.jpg UE. The image is taken from a partisan site [4] that gives no information on its source, or the person depicted. The current name and caption make the image inherently POV; without the name and caption, the image is worthless, since we do not know where it was taken or when it was taken, and it is hard to make out what the photo itself is supposed to show. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second that. No author, place, or time, hence worthless as source of info. Title biased. A potential copyvio, too. mikka (t) 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for the same reasons. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mihnea Tudoreanu. 172 | Talk 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The "partisan site" is run by notable economist Bryan Caplan. If prof. Caplan says the image depicts a victim of Lenin's mass murders, I see no reason not to believe him just because some Wikipedians disagree. An old early Soviet era image can hardly be a copyvio. Someone could write to prof. Caplan and ask about the origins of the images. jni 07:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, it's a victim of famine, not mass murder, and there is no agreement among historians as to what caused the famine (so the claim that it's Lenin's famine is POV at best and outright false at worst - a bit like claiming that this or that 19th century famine is the famine of Tsar X who was in power at the time). Caplan may be a notable economist, but he's certainly not a notable historian, and he's heavily biased. Your appeal to authority is therefore not valid. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is true historians disagree about the causes of the various famines under totalitarian rule of communists in Soviet Union. Furthermore, few historians and political scientists maintain that some of the famines were deliberately engineered genocides; see e.g. Holodomor for references. So my remark about mass murders wasn't that far off. It is a common argument of Austrian economists that economic chaos and deprivation of all kinds are inherent feature of communism (=socialism) and that the collectivization of Russian agriculture begun by Lenin was the leading cause of the Great Famine of 1932-1933 and other famines of the era. Therefore I don't think it is appropriate to draw a comparison with earlier famines under Tsarist rule; they din't have the socialist planning apparatus to wreak havoc back then. The NPOV policy maintains that all significant viewpoints should be given space in articles, the Austrian one is certainly one view that appears in refereed published papers and notable books, not just on Prof. Caplan's website. I don't oppose if the caption and file name of this image gets changes to something else, but listing the public domain image itself for deletion is very close to attempting to introduce bias into Wikipedia by censoring opposing views to one' own. jni 09:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There weren't "various" famines, there were only two (1920-1921 and 1932-1933). In fact, it's worth noting that Russia had a long history of famines before the communists came to power, and the communists ended that history - there were no more famines in the USSR after 1933. Thus it may be viewed as an argument in favor of the communists, not against them. Tsarist famines are important precisely because they show that famines happened in Russia long before there was any socialism. And by the way, Lenin did not begin any collectivization, and Caplan does not support the Austrian school. But let's get back on topic. This isn't an article, it's an image. Deleting it does not mean censoring any point of view, because the image, by itself, does not explain Caplan's point of view or anything else. At most, it's just supporting material - and, as it stands now, it's unencyclopedic supporting material. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, George Mason University is a "partisan site"? OK, technically it's a professor's personal page, but professors at major universities are supposed to be thoroughly grounded in scholarly qualities, which means i) having a good idea that their data is valid, and ii) not mis-representing it. Deleting this is no different from deleting a statement that's sourced to a book he wrote, because in that book he doesn't provide a footnote saying exactly where he got it. Our sourcing policy is simply to enable people using Wikipedia to see where our content comes from; we are supposed to use a very light hand in deleting anything that's properly sourced (short of discredited stuff like space alien abductions). Noel (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above: This isn't an article, it's an image. Deleting it does not mean censoring any point of view, because the image, by itself, does not explain Caplan's point of view or anything else. At most, it's just supporting material - and, as it stands now, it's unencyclopedic supporting material. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The site itself is a PoV rant; to which Prof. Caplan is perfectly entitled; just as other professors, even Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, to their PoV. That's part of academic freedom. But, unless professionally published, it's a hobby. The argument from authority does not apply. Septentrionalis 17:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. We cannot accept an image like this labelled "Victim of Lenin's famine" and with no source info whatsoever. We don't know when or where this picture was taken, anything about the subject, and how exactly it may relate to Lenin's agricultural collectivization policies. Short of that info, even without the POV filename and label this is just unencyclopedic.--Pharos 03:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Any objections to the factual content of the image can be stated in the caption. As noted earlier, the image comes from a professor at the George Mason University and we should be careful when deleting. Ultramarine 10:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Septentrionalis 16:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Cutlass.jpeg: OR, NS, OB by Image:MuseeMarine-sabre-p1000456.jpg —Gabbe 09:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:E.T. poster.jpg OR, OB by Image:ET poster.jpg I uploaded a better version of this image, but had to do so under a different filename because the new Wiki software won't allow the dot after the first letter. --Fritz Saalfeld 09:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Trainer over 3Com.jpg OR - I uploaded this image months ago. I don't need it anymore, replaced it with better images on Flight Unlimited II article.--DooMDrat 12:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Reinounido.jpg incorrectly tagged small stylised orphan of the Union Flag. Dunc|☺ 15:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

July 29

What makes me feel stupid in this is that all images were uploaded by me, even those I put for deletion, so it's my mistake, I should've searched longer for the better images at first. – DarkEvil 21:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

July 30


Flgook

I have taken the liberty of making a new section for User:Flgook's images, mainly so that I can message him about adding them to IFD. According to his upload log, he has been uploading many images as fairuse, when they probably shouldn't be. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancing

User:Necromancing is another user with unverified images. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan3000

User:Tristan3000 has uploaded many images. The following have the source at website http://www.sexy-babes.tv/ This site has the following (c) notice: 2003 NJC FUTURE MEDIA. None of the images have links to the specific section of the website. None of them seem to be promotional material. Ta bu shi da yu 10:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Image:Yana Cova0.jpg is a duplicate of Image:Yana Cova.jpg.

Further, I have taken the liberty of removing several unnecessary magazine covers from Jana Cova. I am listing them here for deletion as OR.

777

User:777 (whose uploads don't appear in the upload log, btw!) has uploaded two images that concern me. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The upload log apparently got wiped last winter (for us northern-hemispherers). 777's image contributions indicated that 777 probably hasn't uploaded any other images. dbenbenn | talk 22:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Laura.jpg - no source, no license
  • Image:Asia-carrera.jpg - this is marked as fair use, but the link is to a fetish adult shop, and I don't think they have ownership of this image.

July 31

^A bunch of orphaned pictures I found while going through the Fair use screenshots category. Thunderbrand 21:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

August 1

All of these are files I should've originally uploaded in PNG and have now done so. All these files are ready to be deleted:

-- KwaziMF 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Fibonacci 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=20146743"