This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I was thinking of having wikipedia:images for deletion or some such. Good? Bad? Martin 21:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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)
Moved from Images for deletion
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)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)
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)
Sometimes image deletions don't work. In such cases, the following method may help:
-- Tim Starling 17:31, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
[moved from page- David Gerard 19:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
The following content was made obsolete by a bug fix, and has been removed by me. • Benc • 11:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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.
20:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2004 (UTC)
(беседа!) 22:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
suppose. In that case, I'll agree with you, David. blankfaze | [[User
talk:blankfaze|(беседа!)]] 22:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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'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.
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)
([3]) is a version that can be
used if and when these cases are speediable. --SPUI (talk) 01:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
((ifd))? RedWolf 05:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
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)
We are currently losing history and information on some moves to Commons. Here is how one instance occurred:
depcription to commons:Image:Separation axioms.png.
Here is what was lost:
(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?
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)
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 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)
See also discussion on Talk:Wikimedia Commons#Moving images to the Commons.
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)
for one month. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo-factor). — Davenbelle 20:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
is best. And that the two votes have the same effect (even though they are different), as I mentioned above.
polls. Thanks for the response. Duk 19:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
When, exactly, was this warning to tag uploads started? --iMb~Mw 05:43, 7 Mar
2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
19:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have created four new templates that might help to notify users that their images are up for deletion.
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.
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)
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